Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority Bill

House of Commons, 8 November 1999.

THE MAYOR'S MONTHLY REPORT TO THE ASSEMBLY

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

This group of amendments makes provision for various matters connected with meetings and the procedures for them. On the first four issues that they cover, the amendments are direct responses to concerns raised during the passage of the Bill, and in particular to views expressed in the other place. Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 46 extend from three days to three clear working days the interval between the mayor submitting a report to the Assembly and the meeting at which the report is considered. Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 61, 83, 116 and 117 make provision for written questions so that the mayor and Greater London Authority staff who may be questioned at Assembly meetings can provide answers in writing when oral answers are not practicable. The amendments also ensure that the text of questions and answers will be open to public inspection in the same way as the minutes of the meeting. Amendments Nos. 49 to 53 remove the requirements to use the names "state of London debate" and "People's Question Time" while leaving both as defined terms in the Bill. They also place duties on the mayor to decide the form and procedure for both events, following consultation with the Assembly. Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 64 replace the requirement for the Assembly to hold monthly meetings with one to hold 10 meetings a year. Those meetings must be no less than 28 days apart and may cover matters in addition to the mayor's report. They also clarify that the Assembly may hold any additional meetings that it chooses. Lords amendments Nos. 69 and 78 make express provision for minutes of Assembly meetings. Lords amendments Nos. 65, 67 and 68, 86, 93, 636 to 639, 642, 643 and 645 provide for the Assembly to take decisions by a simple majority of those present and voting at a meeting, except where there is express provision to the contrary. Lords amendments Nos. 70 to 76 make detailed provision for the Assembly to delegate the discharge of its functions to sub-committees and, in certain circumstances, to members of the Authority's staff. Finally, Lords amendments Nos. 77, 79, 80, 92, 94, 97, 98 to 102, 576 and 581 expressly provide for the establishment of committees and sub-committees of the Assembly to which the Assembly may delegate its functions under clause 46(1)(a), and for the establishment of advisory committees.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We may have views on many groups of amendments, but for the reasons that Opposition Members made clear in the previous debate, we will not comment on many because we would not then be able to contribute to debates on, for example, London transport. The absence of such comments is not to be taken as a lack of interest or a lack of suggestions as to how things might have been done better.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

My point is generic, but it is right to raise it now. The Minister talked about the "state of London debate" and the "mayor of London". I think that it should be called the "state of Greater London debate" because that means a lot to my constituents in what used to be called outer London.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

As a result of provisions now in the Bill, the Assembly will be able to do exactly that and widen the title of the debate to "Greater London" if it so desires.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I think that the Minister misunderstood my point, which concerned not what the Assembly can discuss, but the title "state of London" or "mayor of London".

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am sorry if I did not make the position clear. The Assembly can change the description of the debate to "state of Greater London" if it wishes.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 81, 82, 84, 85, 87 to 91 and 96.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

This group of amendments covers the openness arrangements for the Authority and clarifies the Assembly's power to summons. It completes the provisions for privacy of advice to the mayor, extending them to advice from functional bodies and ensuring that such advice is not disclosed as a background paper for an Assembly meeting. It makes it clear that the openness arrangements in clause 48 apply to Assembly committees and sub-committees. It places a duty on the Assembly not to disclose certain types of commercial information relating to Transport for London and the London development agency. It makes express provision for the Assembly to summon former chairmen and members of functional bodies, and makes it clear that the clause 48 openness arrangements, with appropriate modifications, apply to the power to summons hearings.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I have a simple question for the Minister. Can he say whether, when this Bill becomes law, the facts contained in advice to Ministers will be available to the public? It is a straightforward freedom of information question. I understand the point about advice on what the mayor and Assembly should do, but will the facts compiled in preparing such advice be available to the public?

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

The subject of advice is contained in amendment No. 45. As the Minister will recall, the issue of confidential advice to the mayor was included in neither the Green Paper nor the White Paper, although I acknowledge that it was included in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, on 4 February, in a paving suggestion on what was then clause 37, I raised the subject in anticipation of clauses 51, 56 and 59 of the Bill as it was then. On 9 February, I raised the question, substantively, of confidential advice from the 10 members of the cabinet and the two special advisers. In the Minister's reply, he widely extended the range of those whose advice would remain confidential. I said: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. However, I am simply asking—I am quite certain that he will satisfy me with a single sentence—what legislative cover there is for those other than the 12, to whom he has just referred? Although Hansard does not relate that he did so after receiving a paper from his officials, the Minister replied: The answer is that we shall be tabling amendments to clarify that issue. He was then kind enough to note: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, which we shall ensure is covered by amendments tabled later in our proceedings."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 February 1999; c. 340.] Subsequently and privately, the Minister revealed to me how the matter had occurred; I shall not embarrass anyone by divulging what it was. However, I did look forward to seeing the amendments. They did not arrive on Report in this place, nor in Committee in the Lords. Eventually, they arrived, on 14 October, on Report in the Lords—more than eight months after the Minister's commitment that the Government would table them. They were then withdrawn by Lord Whitty on Report, and were finally introduced into the Bill at the very last possible moment, on Third Reading in the Lords on 1 November, after almost nine months' gestation. Given the unhappiness of many people in local government about the provisions, the Government's handling of the matter does not inspire confidence. It will serve as the most vivid of indices that the Government made the Bill up as they went along.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised two issues. First, the objective that we tried to achieve through the amendments—and which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is satisfied has been achieved in them—is to distinguish between advice to the mayor and background information that should be properly and readily available. That is also one explanation in regard to the question put by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who, in the nicest possible way, complains about the length of time taken to give effect to the commitments that I gave in Committee. It is a difficult task to ensure that there is a proper distinction between advice and background information. We did not want unduly to fetter access to information through giving too broad a definition of advice. In response to points made by noble Friends of the right hon. Gentleman in another place, it is precisely for that reason that we have introduced the latest set of amendments. We want to try to ensure that the privacy of advice to the mayor is respected, while there is the greatest possible access to information and background papers.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I am most grateful to the Minister for his answer. He may plead that the drafting powers of the Department were so entirely occupied that it took eight months for the matter to come up on Report in the Lords. However, if matters come up earlier. Members of this and the other place have the opportunity to improve legislation in the way that the Minister has just described. If the amendments are not tabled, such an opportunity does not exist.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I accept the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's comments; I hope that he will accept that that was achieved in practice. We have reached our objective of ensuring that the provisions of secrecy apply—contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, those provisions were covered in the White Paper. We pointed out that the advice to the mayor would be covered by the provisions of the Whitehall code, rather than the local government code. We are concerned to give effect to those provisions while ensuring that there is the maximum openness on all background information.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

If the Minister reads the exchanges in Committee, he will see that he explained why these matters were not discussed in the Green Paper and the White Paper, but emerged only when the Bill was published.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I do not want to get into a lengthy debate with the right hon. Gentleman about matters covered in Committee. I accept that the matters we are discussing were not covered in the Green Paper and, no doubt, that is the issue we debated several months ago. However, the Government are committed to the Whitehall model, in which the privacy of advice to the mayor is guaranteed, but which is also an openness model in which there is maximum access to background information. That is what the amendments would achieve. It has been difficult to arrive at the right definition, but we are satisfied that we have done so, having listened to the views expressed in Standing Committee and in another place.

PROCEDURE FOR REQUIRING ATTENDANCE

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 103 to 114, 118 to 123 and 158.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The amendments appear complex, but I am pleased to be able to reassure the House that their appearance is deceptive. Amendment No. 95 simply anticipates an amendment to clause 61, which removes the requirement to call the head of paid service the chief administrative officer. Amendments Nos. 121 and 123 would clarify the respective roles of the mayor and the Assembly in the provision of resources for the head of paid service and the monitoring officer. The amendments would provide for the mayor to provide accommodation and other resources for the two officers, and for the Assembly to provide their staff. Amendments Nos. 118, 122 and 158 provide for the head of paid service, the monitoring officer and the chief finance officer to be appointed as members of staff under the provisions of clause 56(2) of the Bill. That prevents those offices being held by staff appointed by the mayor. The procedures for handling reports submitted to the Authority by either the head of paid service or the monitoring officer are also provided for in the amendments. The provision in the Bill requiring the head of paid service should be known as the chief administrative officer has been criticised as being unduly prescriptive. We agree, so the requirement would be deleted by amendment No. 120. Amendments Nos. 103 to 105 are drafting amendments that would reinforce the need for the Assembly to consult the mayor about the appointments of GLA staff which he or she has made, prior to making its own appointments. Amendment No. 106 disapplies the provisions of section 9 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which would impose restrictions on the remuneration that could be paid to the mayor's political advisers. Amendment No. 107 is a consequential amendment. Amendment No. 108 adds the London development agency to the list of bodies which are to be treated as a local authority for the purposes of the politically restricted posts provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Amendment No. 109 deletes references to the Metropolitan police authority and the London fire and emergency planning authority, because they are already covered by the 1989 Act. Amendments Nos. 110 to 112 are drafting amendments, designed to make it clear that, when the mayor appoints one of his or her staff to the board of either the London development agency or Transport for London, it will be on an unpaid basis. Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 apply the provisions of Section 2 of the 1989 Act to the chief finance officer of Transport for London and the chief executive of the London development agency.

New Clause

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 125, 126, 226, 227, 634, 704, 741 and 744.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The amendments provide the Greater London Authority, Transport for London and the London development agency with the power to promote local Bills, and Transport for London with the power to promote and oppose orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992. The amendments ensure that any local legislation promoted by the GLA is subject to consultation and that, where it affects the exercise of statutory functions of one or more London local authorities, a consent regime is followed. The amendments were the subject of careful consultation with representatives of local government in London and with the authorities in both Houses before they were tabled, and were warmly welcomed when they were introduced in another place. We subsequently amended them slightly to ensure consistency of terminology across the provisions.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Liberal Democrats support the amendments. Have the Government legislated to give other development agencies or authorities in England the same Bill-promoting power?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am not aware of such legislation, but I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman. This power relates specifically to the provisions for London.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 141, 146, 149, 167 to 169, 559, 644, 656 and 795.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The amendments make minor drafting changes and additions to the finance provisions in the Bill. Amendment No. 127 simply corrects an oversight by amending section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The amendment ensures that section 30 includes a reference to the GLA's budget requirement and tax-setting provisions, which are set out in the legislation. This will require billing authorities to add to council tax bills the amounts calculated by the GLA under the budget requirement and tax-setting provisions of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 141 and 146 remove unnecessary regulation-making powers from the Bill and make clear under which powers the regulations referred to in clauses 79 and 80 are to be made. Amendment No. 168 amends section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to ensure that properties occupied by the functional bodies cannot be granted discretionary rate relief by billing authorities. As a major precepting authority, the GLA cannot be granted such relief. The GLA and the functional bodies will be able to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board, as authorities whose capital finances are regulated under part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Amendments Nos. 169 and 795 are necessary to give the commissioners a complementary power to lend money to the functional bodies. Amendment Nos. 167 and 656 amend the Local Government Act 1999, which in turn amends the Local Government Finance Act 1992, so that references to the budget requirement and tax-setting provisions of the Greater London Authority Bill are accurate. The amendments are needed because of the insertion of new clauses into the Bill since the Local Government Act 1999 received Royal Assent. Amendment No. 559 requires any subordinate legislation made by the Secretary of State under clause 317(1) to be approved by an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. Amendments No. 149 and 644 make minor changes in drafting to the Bill.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

The amendments can loosely be described as drafting and miscellaneous amendments. At this point—and only at this point—I shall mention a matter that I raised in Committee. For the first time in legislation—it is an historic development—we are to refer to a presiding officer, in this case of the GLA, as the "chair", rather than as the "chairman". To me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are not an inanimate object, but a chairman. Until now, in modern English usage, the word "chairman" has embraced the female, although we could refer to a woman chairman as "Madam Chairman". Because I was outvoted, I have to accept that we shall refer to the presiding officer of the Greater London Assembly or the presiding officer of any of its committees as the "chair". The Bill draws upon many other Acts of Parliament, and every one of them refers to such a person as the "chairman". My simple question might now be obvious: do these 820 amendments cover the change of wording from "chairman" to "chair" in all the other legislation mentioned in the Bill—and if not, why not?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point which was debated at some length in Committee. We have adopted a pragmatic approach and do not seek to change all references to the "chairman" in previous legislation. However, we think that it is right that the term "chair" should be used, and we do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that this is an arcane issue. We are creating a new authority that is designed to appeal to the people of London as we move into the next millennium. We want to ensure that it is seen to be an open authority that is not hidebound by old conventions. The terminology is not a point of substance. We have simply sought, in a pragmatic way, to create references that will be acceptable to the majority of the population in the years ahead.

ISSUE OF PRECEPTS

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in amendment No. 131.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

May I correct the Minister? We all sometimes get the order of amendments slightly wrong. On this occasion, the lead amendment is amendment No. 128.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in amendment No. 127—I beg your pardon, Sir Alan—amendment No. 128.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 129, 130, 139, 142 to 145, 147, 148, 150 and 151.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Amendment No. 128 is a technical amendment, as are the associated amendments. They ensure that when the Authority makes substitute calculations, it does so by reference to the correct provisions, including schedule 6. If the amendments were not made, the Bill would appear to require substitute calculations to be made in accordance with schedule 5. That, in practice, would prove impossible, as schedule 5 requires calculations to be made by the end of February each year, whereas the need for substitute calculations is unlikely to arise until after the end of February. Schedule 6 instead provides the appropriate procedure and sets out the roles of mayor and Assembly in making substitute calculations The amendments make it clear that schedule 6 governs the procedure for making substitute calculations.

CALCULATION OF BASIC AMOUNT OF TAX

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 132 to 138, 635 and 640.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The amendments, like the previous group—which may explain my confusion—are all minor technical amendments that clarify the duties of the mayor and Assembly in setting the GLA consolidated budget, and amend the Secretary of State's powers in the budget-setting process. Amendment No. 635 is consequential to an amendment made to clause 29 at Commons Report stage. Clause 29 provides that any function of the authority is exercised by the mayor unless specified otherwise. The amendment clarifies that the duty of preparing the budget is shared between the mayor and Assembly, as set out in schedule 5. Amendment No. 640 removes the Secretary of State's power to change the date of the last day of February by which the GLA's budget must be finalised. It responds to concerns expressed during the Bill's Committee stage in the other place. The Secretary of State will be able to move the 1 February date by which the mayor must present his or her draft consolidated budget to the Assembly. That will allow the Secretary of State to use his discretion in deciding whether to change the date by which the mayor must present the draft budget to take account of any delay in announcing the local government finance settlement. Amendments Nos. 131 to 138 ensure that the Secretary of State will be able to set out the amounts of general GLA grant that he considers relate to police and non-police services in the determination in which the total amount of general GLA grant paid is set out. That is necessary because the general GLA grant will be the subject of a determination, not a report, and will therefore not be subject to an affirmative or negative resolution procedure. The other items of income used in the calculations of the basic amount of tax and of the special item are all the subject of a report.

SUBSTITUTE CALCULATIONS UNDER SECTION 49 OF THE 1992 ACT

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 152.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The amendment, and the associated amendment, No. 152, make minor clarifications to the mayor's powers and duties in relation to the GLA's single finance system. Amendment No. 140 eliminates an unintended effect of the GLA's power to make substitute calculations. It ensures that the mayor and Assembly cannot re-allocate money from one GLA body to another during the financial year, except to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Authority budget is adequate, following a direction from the Secretary of State, or in the event of an emergency or disaster. The mayor and Assembly will thus, as had always been our intention, be able to use the power to make substitute calculations only to cut both the consolidated and component budgets. For example, a newly elected mayor may want to do that. Amendment No. 152 amends a possible misunderstanding in respect of clause 105 as it left the House—namely, that the mayor is required to state for each functional body a minimum amount of capital grant he will pay to that body. That was not the intended effect. It was intended to leave the mayor free to decide what capital grant he makes to the functional bodies and to require him to specify an amount only when he decides to pay a body no less than a certain amount. The mayor will, of course, be able to specify in section B of the capital spending plan an amount of nil as the minimum amount of capital grant he will pay to a functional body. He is more likely simply to specify no amount if he has not reached a decision on a minimum amount. The clause as amended will raise no doubts about his ability to do that.

PROPER FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 155 to 157.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Amendment No. 154 and the associated amendments clarify the arrangements for appointing chief finance officers for the GLA and functional bodies. Amendment No. 154 provides that no individual can be simultaneously the chief finance officer of the GLA and a functional body, or of two or more functional bodies. That is necessary to make it absolutely certain that the GLA and the functional bodies do not share chief finance officers. A key principle of the GLA's finance system is that each body is responsible for managing its own affairs once the GLA's consolidated budget has been set. Allowing bodies to share chief finance officers would have undermined that principle and could have caused conflicts of interest. Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 provide that the Assembly appoints the GLA's chief finance officer and that the officer is designated from staff appointed by the Assembly rather than from staff appointed by the mayor. Without the amendments, the function of making the appointment would, by default, have fallen to the mayor. Amendment No. 157 prohibits the mayor from being designated the chief finance officer of Transport for London. The Bill allows it to appoint one of its members, rather than a member of staff, as chief finance officer. As the mayor has the power to decide to chair Transport for London, he or she could be appointed as the body's chief finance officer. That would cause an unacceptable conflict of interest given the mayor's policy responsibilities for transport and powers of direction over Transport for London, and the chief finance officer's duty to ensure proper financial administration. These amendments tidy the provisions to appoint chief finance officers of the GLA and functional bodies to ensure that they give full effect to our intentions.

APPLICATION OF PART VIII OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1988

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 160 to 166, 513, 514, 647 to 650, 652, 653 and 655.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

You will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is the last group of amendments that we shall consider before we discuss transport, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will cover. The group includes two new clauses—amendments Nos. 513 and 514—and consequential amendments, which implement our White Paper commitment to bring the London Pensions Fund Authority under the democratic control of the GLA. The LPFA, which is currently a quango accountable to the Secretary of State, administers former GLC pensions and employer liabilities and the pensions of certain other bodies admitted to the fund under the local government pension scheme regulations. It cannot be right that a body focused on London and affecting the lives of many people across London is not answerable in some way to a democratically elected authority. Amendment No. 513 inserts a new clause providing for the mayor to comment each year on the LPFA's budget and on strategic plans drawn up by the body. Amendment No. 514 inserts a clause transferring from the Secretary of State to the mayor responsibilities for the appointments and tenure of office of members of the LPFA, for determining their remuneration and for receiving reports and information. Amendments Nos. 159 to 166, 647 to 650, 652, 653 and 655 are consequential and deal with the auditing and accounts of the LPFA when it is brought under the authority of the GLA.

THE MAYOR'S TRANSPORT STRATEGY

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 171.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The amendments followed discussion in this House and another place about the provisions in the Bill in respect of transport for those with mobility problems. My ministerial colleagues and I have received correspondence from people outside the House expressing concern that the Bill is not inclusive enough of the needs and views of users of accessible transport services. We considered the arguments carefully, both before and during the passage of the Bill. We recognised at an early stage that the special needs of those with mobility problems deserved particular attention. That is why, on introducing the Bill to Parliament, we included a specific provision requiring the mayor to include in his or her transport strategy proposals for the provision of transport accessible to those with mobility problems. Although we believe that the existing Bill's provisions fully meet concerns over consultation with organisations representing elderly and disabled people, I recognise that there is still concern. We accept that there are advantages in giving a clear signal about the importance that we attach to those issues. Indeed, when we come to discuss the exemptions from congestion charging later in the debate we shall discuss other improvements that we have been able to make. Amendment No. 171 requires the mayor, when preparing the transport strategy to consult groups representing persons with mobility problems. Amendment No. 170 requires that the mayor set out in the transport strategy a timetable for the implementation of his or her proposals for the provision of transport accessible to persons with mobility problems. I should stress that the amendments are targeted specifically at the transport strategy, in recognition of the particular impact that the strategy will have on those with mobility problems. The amendments do not affect the provisions covering the mayor's other strategies. Taken together, they will ensure that transport for those with mobility problems will be a key element of the mayor's transport strategy. We are committed to comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people. Accessible public transport within the framework of an integrated transport policy must be fundamental in delivering that commitment. The long-term goal must be to ensure that accessible transport is regarded as part of the mainstream transport infrastructure, not as an add-on. There are wider benefits in delivering accessible transport; for example, low-floor buses are easier for the whole travelling public, not just elderly and disabled people. When I speak of accessible transport, I am not just referring to public transport. We must not forget that many Londoners with mobility problems rely on dedicated door-to-door transport services. The London White Paper set out our commitments in that area. Responsibility for the dedicated door-to-door services currently provided by the dial-a-ride and taxicard schemes will transfer to the new authority. The mayor's duty to include in the transport strategy proposals for accessible transport encompasses proposals for door-to-door services as well as public transport. The amendments further strengthen the provisions in the Bill for accessible transport for those with mobility problems.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We agree that amendment No. 170 adds something of value to the Bill. If one is to have a strategy that requires one to make transport accessible to disabled people, it is sensible to ensure that there is a timetable for doing so; otherwise, it will be based just on hope and aspiration. Those of us who regularly confront the issue of disabled people's frustration with public transport—which, as the Minister said, is linked to the private system—know that a strategy with no timetable would be of little worth. 5.15 pm Is it the Minister's understanding that the provisions of Lords amendment No. 171 include river transport? If we are serious about integrating river transport, and if this is to be a transport strategy for London, we ought to consider how disabled people can also have access to river transport. It is no good our trying to promote it if, for many of our citizens, it remains as inaccessible as before. I hope that I can have a positive answer to my question about Lords amendment No. 171, in return for my positive approbation for Lords amendment No. 170.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

In response to the typically constructive and positive approach adopted by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I am delighted to affirm that river services form part of the transport strategy for people with mobility problems, and that that is an entirely proper subject for the mayor and the Assembly to consider in devising a transport strategy for London.

DUTIES OF LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS ETC.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 372 and 414.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The amendments follow discussion in this House and in another place about the relationship between the Royal Parks Agency and local highway and traffic authorities in the context of road closures and other changes regarding highways and traffic. In the light of those discussions, we have amended the Bill to require the Royal Parks Agency to have regard to the mayor's transport strategy, and to introduce for the first time a statutory consultation arrangement between the royal parks and the local highways and traffic authorities. Lords amendment No. 172 provides that the Secretary of State—which in practice means the Royal Parks Agency—must have regard to the mayor's transport strategy when carrying out any functions relating to the management of roads and traffic in a royal park. Lords amendment No. 372 provides that, if the agency proposes to carry out functions that are likely to affect a road for which another authority is the highway authority, it must consult that authority. Similarly, if a highway authority proposes to carry out functions that are likely to affect a royal park, the authority must consult the agency. The one exception is that, when it would not be reasonably practicable for the agency to consult the highway authority—or vice versa—before the functions are carried out, each may go ahead and tell the other body afterwards. Lords amendment No. 414 provides that, if the agency proposes to carry out functions that are likely to affect a road for which another authority is the traffic authority, the agency must consult the authority and Transport for London. Similarly, if a traffic authority proposes to carry out functions that are likely to affect a royal park, it must consult the agency. Again, the one exception is that, when it would not be reasonably practicable for the agency to consult the borough or Transport for London—or vice versa—before the functions are carried out, the agency or the traffic authority may go ahead and tell the other body afterwards.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I support the amendments. It is entirely right not only for local authorities and other bodies but for the Secretary of State, who is responsible for royal parks, to have regard to the mayor's transport strategy. There are a number of main arteries in London that pass through the royal parks, the opening and closing of which can have a major impact on roads in their vicinity. I hope that, for that reason alone, the House will support the amendments.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I, too, appreciate the moves that the Government have made. In Committee on 16 February, at column 599, in response to a mischievous and provocative speech by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—I say that in friendly terms—I made paving reference to a point that I came back to on clause 179. In columns 963 and 964, I raised the problem of the lack of connection in traffic control between the royal parks and the rest of Greater London, including the adjacent local authorities. The then Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) explained that there were no powers to enable the bridging of that gap. The matter was debated twice in Committee in the Lords. On 19 October, Lord Whitty moved these amendments, which are an excellent development. It is a vindication of the parliamentary process that we have come to such a good solution—one that people surrounding the royal parks have been crying out for for ages. I salute the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for being such a pleasure to do business with, in marked contrast with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has cut funding to the royal parks, insisted that they must have a series of concerts, interrupting their quietude, and allowed a series of Albanian hot dog vendors to run not in a manner that is liable to turn the royal parks into a version of Coney island. I unreservedly commend the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for his kind words. I also pay tribute to the outstanding contribution made by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on the issue. The Bill and the whole of London have benefited from it and we are very grateful to him.

POWER OF THE MAYOR TO PREPARE A PLAN

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 174 to 193.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

When the clauses relating to local implementation plans were discussed in this House, we were pressed on why we had not included any provisions for review of the plans. We were also asked why the mayor could claim for the boroughs only reasonable administrative expenses rather than all reasonable expenses, if he or she had to intervene to implement a plan. We agreed to reflect on those issues. The amendments were added to the Bill in another place. I am sorry that so many amendments were required, but it is necessary to ensure that the same process is followed for a revised plan as for the original.

STRUCTURE OF FARES AND SERVICES.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 195 to 212, 703 and amendments (a) to (e) thereto, 214, 215, 223 and amendment (a) thereto and motion to disagree, 224, 225, 228, 232 to 234, 235 and amendment (a) thereto, 236 to 238, 334, 336, 338, 346, 423, 565, 566, 572, 577, 582, 657, 659 to 696, 698 to 702, 712, 714, 715, 717 and 799 to 801.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The House is enormously grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may say so, that was beautifully enunciated. The amendments in this group are largely technical improvements to the detailed transport functions of the mayor and Transport for London. Some are reproductions of current statutory functions of London Transport—functions conferred on London Transport under legislation introduced by a Conservative Government. Some of them represent a positive reaction to points which have been raised in the other place. Some concern new powers and duties to reflect the wider responsibilities of Transport for London and the integrated approach which it will be able to take to transport in the capital. The amendments are intended to be helpful, and do not alter the basic structure of the Bill. I hope that it will assist the House—as I describe the general effect of these amendments—if I distinguish between those which give Transport for London its powers, those which impose duties and those which are editorial or technical in nature. It may also help if I give some illustrative examples of each type of amendment. I should mention that this group also includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable the current tax status of Transport for London's predecessor bodies to be maintained once those bodies have transferred to Transport for London. Let me deal first with the powers which this group of amendments gives to Transport for London. TfL will, of course, be a new organisation, but it will need to have many of the same powers as its predecessors. These amendments ensure that the relevant powers of London Transport are passed to Transport for London. For example, the amendments give it the power to make railway byelaws. The amendments also allow Transport for London to run a transport museum and to pay grants to bodies such as the dial-a-ride companies. Those activities are of course already undertaken by London Transport, and will be continued by Transport for London. However, Transport for London will need not only to inherit the relevant powers of its predecessor bodies, but to have powers to discharge its wider statutory duties and to reflect the changing nature of transport provision. The amendments allow for that. For example, the amendments give Transport for London the power to form joint venture companies and to provide transport facilities without itself having to run services to and from those facilities. The amendments recognise that Transport for London's responsibilities will not be limited to passenger transport. It will thus have the power to provide intermodal freight facilities—a point suggested by my noble Friend Lord Berkeley in the other place. The duties imposed on Transport for London by the amendments relate primarily to the provision of information. Amendment No. 236 requires Transport for London annually to inform local authorities and the London Transport Users Committee of its plans for fares and services, and to publish details of its fares. Again, this is a reproduction of a current duty of London Transport. However, we have also given Transport for London a new duty—I ought to mention that we were prompted to do so by Conservative peers—to provide information to the public about the Transport for London public transport services. This duty builds upon the present travel information service provided by London Transport to its customers, and will assist in the delivery of the passenger transport information 2000 initiative to provide a national public transport information service during the course of next year. We have made a number of editorial and technical changes. For example, we have included provisions allowing Transport for London to fulfil the contractual obligations of predecessor bodies so that there is no disruption to services. We have provided for Transport for London to make transfer schemes for the distribution of property among its subsidiaries, so that the mayor can structure Transport for London and its transport functions as he or she wishes. Government amendments (a) to (e) to Lords amendment No. 703 make technical and consequential changes relating to the operation and the interpretation of the new schedule on Transport for London transfer schemes. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, these amendments complete the toolkit which Transport for London will need to deliver the mayor's vision for transport in the capital. I am conscious that, in the time available to us today, it might be inappropriate for me to describe the amendments in exhaustive detail, but I will try to answer any queries that hon. Members may have, either now or in writing.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I should like to speak specifically to Lords amendment No. 223, which Liberal Democrat Members oppose and on which we shall seek to divide the House. First, however, I should point out that the Table Office has made a drafting error in our amendment (a). We have proposed omitting from "Secretary of State", in line 41, to "the", in line 42, as we accept that the mayor should be able to authorise the issue of shares, stock and—as we propose—bonds. 5.30 pm London's transport system is undoubtedly in a shambles—we are able to see with our own eyes the evidence of that fact. Some months ago, I tabled a private notice question on delays on the underground between 1994–95 and 1998–99. The fact is that, in that period, delays increased by 25 per cent. or more. My own experience of travelling by bus, tube or train from Wallington to Westminster has also confirmed that delays have increased. We have had very significant transport fare increases. Moreover, on 9 January, fares on the underground will increase by 2.5 per cent., whereas inflation is running well below that. The real fare increase, therefore, will be about 50 per cent. above inflation. Against that background, the mayor should be given all possible financial options so that he or she is able to invest the sums necessary to take our underground system from the 19th to the 21st century. Liberal Democrat Members certainly welcome the Government's agreement that the mayor should be able to raise money in share issues—in Committee, we were pushing for such a provision—but we should also like the mayor to be given the option of issuing not only shares, but bonds. Our amendment (a) would provide the mayor with that option. Around the world, there are many examples—New York is one—of transport systems that have been funded by bond issues. Many of the original tube lines were financed by bond issues. The mayor may need to use that financial option if the public-private partnership does not proceed—although hon. Members may not think that that is a possibility. In a parliamentary question, I asked when the PPP contracts would be signed, and was told that they would be signed "when they are ready". That was a very helpful response, and I was pleased to hear that the contracts will not be signed before they are ready. The response continued: We have learned the lessons of rail privatisation and will not impose a politically driven timetable at the expense of ensuring that the resulting deal is right."—[Official Report, 2 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 78.] It is, therefore, entirely possible that the PPP will not proceed. What if the PPP does not prove to offer best value and fails the public sector comparative test? Hon. Members may be thinking, "Surely that couldn't happen. Surely the Government have already confirmed that the PPP will pass the public sector comparative test before contracts are signed." However, I do not believe that that is the case. In a debate earlier this year, the then Minister for Transport said: I have made it clear that, in the private-public partnership, the value-for-money proposal will be the criterion against which all our proposals are tested. The Government will not implement a public-private partnership unless we are entirely satisfied that it will secure best value for the taxpayer."—[Official Report, 27 January 1999: Vol. 324, c. 413.] At what point will the Government be able to confirm whether the PPP secures best value? Such questions have prompted our desire to provide the mayor with the additional financial option of issuing bonds, so that he or she will have fall-back funding if the PPP proposals should fall apart. What exactly are the Government's objections to issuing bonds? Last week, in another place, we were given an explanation for their objection. The Government said that they believed that the PPP that they are putting together would prove to be better value than bond financing. I hardly consider that a ringing endorsement of the PPP—but it is not a damning criticism of bonds, either. Having outlined the reasons why the Government should take on board our modest amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 223, I shall also speak in favour of another amendment in the group—amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) to Lords amendment No. 235. That amendment seems sensible to us. In my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington there is strong demand for transport infrastructure improvements. For instance, many residents would welcome the extension of the Croydon tramlink into Carshalton and Wallington, and on to Sutton. The amendment would allow the borough of Sutton to enter into discussions with Transport for London to provide such an extension. I urge the Government at this late hour to accept our motion to disagree with Lords amendment No. 223. They have nothing to lose, and Londoners have much to gain.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I shall speak to amendment (a), tabled in my name to Lords amendment No. 235. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will recall—or they may not—that I tabled an amendment then that would have allowed the mayor to enter into a voluntary arrangement with the City of London corporation for a voluntary contribution towards infrastructure projects in London. That was not a duplicitous plot to undermine the financial standing of the corporation—I wish that it had been—but simply an attempt to release resources for the benefit of London, especially for transport infrastructure projects. The amendment built upon the attempts that we have made over the past 10 years to encourage voluntary agreements between the City of London corporation and Londonwide local government and service structures overall, to provide the necessary resources for the development of infrastructure projects, especially for transport but also for environmental purposes. My amendment would build on Lords amendment No. 235, which would enable Transport for London to enter into agreements with the common council of the City of London corporation and London boroughs for the provision of transport services, but it would also clarify the fact that the definition should include transport infrastructure projects as well. Hon. Members representing constituencies throughout London have made clear the need for long-term investment in transport infrastructure projects. The amendment would enable the same clarity to exist in relation to the question of where the resources will come from. I note that all three contenders for selection as Labour candidate for mayor have expressed support for the concept of "going to the City" to finance infrastructure projects in London, and within the definition of the City, I would include the City of London corporation itself. I will have to be convinced during the debate of the reasons why the Government do not wish to accept the amendment to facilitate the issuing of bonds. I agree with those who say that we should maximise the flexibility for the new Greater London Authority, the mayor and Transport for London to draw upon a range of resources to fund transport developments in London. I do not support the public-private partnership. I understand the arguments in favour of it that have been mobilised in the House and elsewhere, but there are elements of risk involved. Putting that to one side, however, even if the PPP were the best option for now, we would not wish to prevent a future administration from being able to draw upon other financial sources. The amendment would provide the opportunity not only for shares to be issued but for bonds to be drawn upon. I shall need convincing of the reasons why we should rule that out in the long term. The Government may not want to support the idea now, but at some future stage it might give the mayor and the new strategic authority the necessary flexibility. We should not use the Bill to prohibit that, and if I am not convinced by the Government's reasons, I shall support the amendment in the Lobby.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall deal first with amendment (a) tabled by my hon. Friend he Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) to Lords amendment No. 235. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his amendment, but I hope that I can persuade him that it is unnecessary. Amendment No. 235 provides for the retention of the existing powers of London local authorities other than the GLA to procure additional rail services and facilities from the franchising director and train operating companies, and of local authority powers to enter into agreements with Transport for London for additional services and facilities. Those powers are currently available to London local authorities under sections 28 and 59 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984. Amendment (a) would mean that the powers of London local authorities would include the ability to enter into agreements for transport infrastructure projects, as well as for facilities and services. Local authorities' powers under amendment No. 235 are really designed to allow them to secure services and facilities that would not otherwise be provided by Transport for London or rail operators. For example, a London borough might use those powers to arrange for additional bus services to cater for a special event. However, transport infrastructure projects are neither facilities nor services, although it is possible that a project might result in facilities or services being provided. I fear that amendment (a) confuses the idea of a project, which could require new facilities and services, with the provision of those facilities and services. Local authorities do not necessarily need powers to embark on a project, but they do need powers to do things in connection with those projects. Amendment No. 235 will give them the necessary powers. I should also mention that any proposal for a large transport infrastructure project could require statutory authority, either by means of a Bill or by the making of an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 by the Secretary of State. London boroughs and Transport for London have the power to promote applications for such orders. Accepting amendment (a) could create some uncertainty in that area, and I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington to withdraw it.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I am happy to withdraw my amendment on the basis of a simple statement from my hon. Friend. Under the existing proposed legislation, will the mayor, the authority or Transport for London have the ability to enter into a voluntary arrangement with the City of London corporation, or a London borough, to fund a transport infrastructure project? I give the example of the City of London corporation because it proposed the idea some seven or eight years ago, and intimated that it would be willing to enter into a voluntary agreement on such projects with any new organisation or with the Government.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

My hon. Friend asks whether the mayor can enter into agreements with City institutions or London local authorities for the financing of a major infrastructure project—for example, crossrail. The answer is yes, in principle. The Bill will give the mayor and Transport for London extensive powers—broadly similar to those that London Transport has now—to enter into agreements for transport purposes. Of course, much would depend on the precise form of the proposed agreements, and that would no doubt need to be looked at carefully if and when a proposal emerged. Transport for London will of course be free to negotiate private finance initiative deals, to finance transport projects, for example, as long as they are considered off balance sheet. In other words, if sufficient risk is transferred to the private sector, the borrowing will not score against public expenditure or need credit approvals. Under Lords amendment No. 235 local authorities will be able to enter into agreements with Transport for London regarding the provision of transport services and facilities. That will provide considerable scope for undertaking joint projects. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington will be satisfied by those wide-ranging reassurances.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

It will take just one more sentence to satisfy me. My understanding of what my hon. Friend has said is that it will be perfectly appropriate for the new mayor and Authority, after next May's election, to approach the City of London corporation and request a voluntary agreement to fund crossrail, for example, although a more important example might involve the Central line extension to Uxbridge. Will my hon. Friend confirm that my understanding is correct?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I think that I have answered that question already by saying yes, in principle. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asserted several times that, under some new arrangement, the mayor will be permitted to float shares. I wish to emphasise that the mayor will not have that power. Although Transport for London can form companies, it cannot sell the shares in those companies if to do so would result in the contracting out of the operations of underground trains or stations. On amendment No. 223(a)—

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman asks to intervene a little early in my explanation, and I have to note that he was not in the Chamber for the beginning of this debate.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I was in the Chamber, but I was somewhere else. [Interruption.] I was on another Bench. Will the Minister clarify what he said about the mayor? My understanding of the Government amendment agreed to in the Lords, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred, is that the Government were happy to accept the argument advanced by Opposition Members in Committee. That amendment appears to propose that the mayor rather than the Secretary of State would have the power to raise shares. Will the Minister confirm that that is indeed what is proposed?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am pleased to clarify that point. The purpose of the amendment is to transfer to the mayor the power of the Secretary of State to authorise the issue of shares by Transport for London to a person other than Transport for London or its subsidiaries. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that I did not spot him when he was hiding elsewhere in the Chamber. The Bill already confers powers on the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies to borrow money within the existing local authority finance framework. That includes borrowing by issuing bonds, as well as borrowing through credit approvals, entering into a private finance initiative arrangement or making a case for additional funding to the Greater London Authority transport grant. Under the current local government finance regime, a bond issued by one of those bodies would count as public borrowing. It would need to be secured against all the revenues of the authority and could not be secured against a particular revenue stream. A bond issued by a Greater London Authority body would be a more expensive way of raising money than if the Government borrowed the money themselves. In practice, local authorities rarely borrow by issuing bonds, because it is cheaper and easier to borrow from the Public Works Loans Board. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington both asked why neither the Greater London Authority nor Transport for London might issue bonds secured normally against a revenue stream from a congestion-charging regime. The answer is that borrowing through a bond secured against the revenues from a congestion-charging regime still counts as public expenditure under the current local government finance regime. As I have already explained, bonds must currently be secured against all the revenues of the authority and not just against one revenue stream. There would be no advantage in allowing borrowing secured against the revenue from a single project, such as a congestion-charging scheme, as it would offer lenders less security and would cost more. However, we are reviewing the local government finance regime. In particular, we are examining the possibility of allowing local authorities to borrow, subject only to limits relating the level of debt to their future income, and the use of prudential indicators to regulate borrowing. We plan to publish a consultation paper in the spring, following completion of the review. The Greater London Authority, along with local authorities in general, will, of course, benefit from any changes that may follow the review, although it is too early to say what those may be or when they might be put into effect.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I understand the Minister's argument but—and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) is more expert than I am—it may not be sufficient. The Minister that the Government plan to issue a consultation document in the spring after the review. But any decision may be made too late for the new GLA, which will be elected in May and in power from July, if it is to address what is an immediate issue. That is a defect in the Minister's argument, because the power may come too late for the GLA to act.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me seek to interpret the hon. Gentleman's point. I take it that the immediate issue to which he refers is new investment in the London underground system. Let me reassure the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Carshalton and Wallington that good progress has been made in implementing the London Underground public-private partnership proposals since my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced them in March last year. On 7 October, London Transport announced that five consortiums had pre-qualified for the infrastructure contracts, and would be invited to tender for the deep tube infrastructure contracts. Invitation to tender documents were issued on 19 October, and bids are due back by March 2000. We are confident that the scheme is going ahead and that it will be successful.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I understand the Government's plan, but some of us, including Conservative Members, are not happy with it. If the mayor and Assembly elected in May have different ideas about the project, does the Minister accept that the rejection the amendment would preclude the mayor and Authority from raising money in the short term by a bond issue, unless the Government had decided to change their whole policy on local government financing?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The blunt truth is that they would be precluded in the short term. However, the Government are confident about the timetable, and that achievement of the London Underground PPP project is well on course, so that it will be delivering to London, as scheduled, in the course of 2001. In conclusion, I hope that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will be content with my reply and will not seek to press the amendment to a Division.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

rose—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak a second time. I was hoping that the amendment would be moved formally at a later stage. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking the leave of the House?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to the Minister's response. He gave no clear reason why the mayor should not have the flexibility to issue bonds secured against a number of revenue streams, not necessarily a single revenue stream. I believe that many of his objections to the amendment are Government-imposed restrictions relating to the public sector borrowing requirement and the Government's timetable for future business. I am afraid, therefore, that we ought to press the amendment to the vote. I am disappointed that Conservative Members have not supported us on the issue, as I do not believe that there are any reasons to restrict the mayor's flexibility unnecessarily. The mayor needs to have as many options as possible for raising funds for transport.

RESTRICTIONS ON THE DISPOSAL OF LAND

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 217 to 222 and 567.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

When the Bill left this House, clause 141 and parts of clause 140 placed restrictions on Transport for London's ability to dispose of operational railway and tramway land. The clause is designed to prevent the permanent sale of key operational assets, primarily underground and docklands light railway lines and stations. Transport for London is required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to such disposals. However, the Bill as drafted required Transport for London to obtain the Secretary of State's consent to any disposal of operational railway or tramway land. The Government acknowledge that this formulation was unduly restrictive. It might have meant that Transport for London had to seek consent to all land disposals, instead of just those involving underground and DLR lines and stations. The amendments, therefore, gave effect to a previous ministerial undertaking that the restrictions on disposal of land would be refined to give Transport for London some operational flexibility over its property portfolio. The amendments change the definition of operational land, so that the Secretary of State's consent to disposal will not be required when the land in question is comparable to land in general, rather than land used for railway purposes. Amendment No. 220 provides that where underground or DLR lines or stations cease to be used for railway purposes, disposal will not be permitted without the Secretary of State's consent for a period of five years thereafter, or such other period as the Secretary of State may determine by order. We think that the amendments strike the right balance between the need for Transport for London to have some operational flexibility and the protection of key operational assets.

CONTROL OF SUBSIDIARIES

POWERS OF DISPOSAL

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 230, 231, 297 to 333, 335, 569 and 705 to 707.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Again, I—

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you investigate the fact that, apparently, the Division Bells are not ringing in Norman Shaw North?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That point has already been made and steps are being taken to investigate the matter.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

This group of amendments makes a number of largely technical or clarifying changes to the provisions relating to the London Underground public-private partnership. The structure and overall effect of the PPP provisions remain the same as they were when this House last considered the Bill. The first batch of amendments relates to PPP agreements and the arrangements for designating key assets. Amendments Nos. 287, 299, 300 and 335 extend to a subsidiary of London Regional Transport and Transport for London the powers already held by those parent bodies to enter into PPP agreements and to designate key system assets for the special protection provided by the Bill. Amendment No. 298 provides for the PPP agreements to be entered into while infrastructure companies are still subsidiaries of London Underground Ltd. Amendments Nos. 301 to 304 give Transport for London greater flexibility over the format, but not the content, of the information about key assets that it is required to make publicly available. Amendments Nos. 305 to 310 and amendment No. 329 provide for TfL to make transfer schemes for the distribution of property among its subsidiaries and PPP companies, so as to enable the mayor to retrieve all protected assets at the end of PPP contracts. The second and largest batch of amendments—Nos. 318 to 328, 330 to 333, and 560—adjust and expand the existing provisions regarding the PPP arbiter, a post created by the Bill to determine the price to be paid by London Underground for the work undertaken by a PPP company, if a dispute were to arise at a periodic review of the contract. The provisions allow the same person to hold the offices of Rail Regulator and arbiter, although I stress that no decision has been taken on an appointment. The provisions clarify the circumstances in which the arbiter can issue directions and guidance; refine the drafting of some of his statutory duties; provide legal protections and sanctions relating to his information-gathering powers; and ensure that terms used in the chapter are adequately defined. The third batch of amendments makes technical or editorial changes. Amendments Nos. 229 to 231 clarify London Transport's existing powers of disposal. Amendments Nos. 311 to 317 adjust the existing land provisions to avoid uncertainty in the treatment of PPP leases. Amendments Nos. 705 to 707 delete a couple of superfluous provisions in schedule 11.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his explanation of this group of amendments. We have a special interest in amendment No. 332. Our interest is heightened because I am aware that the hon. Gentleman, who is relatively new to his post, has, like Opposition Members, had some difficulty in fathoming the extraordinary number of amendments that we have had to consider. The job of the Opposition has been made especially difficult by the absence—by and large—of explanatory notes for the amendments. Last Wednesday, the day before we first considered Lords amendments to the Bill, the Under-Secretary made some notes available. As there are 818 Government amendments, it has, however, been extremely difficult to cope at this late stage with the explanatory notes, which do not in any case include an explanation of many of the amendments. I hope that my preamble is giving the Minister for Housing and Planning time to provide his assistant with the necessary information to cope with my comments. My questions are genuine. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will be able to satisfy us—perhaps not. We look forward to hearing what he has to say. Amendment No. 332 follows on from the previous amendment—they are interrelated and deal with the power of the PPP arbiter to requisition any information that he desires, within legal bounds. However, amendment No. 332 seems to restrict the arbiter from making some of the information public. Its stated purpose is to give statutory protection to third parties against the disclosure of information collected by the arbiter. How do the Government reconcile that protection with the principle of open government and freedom of information? What has happened to the principle of freedom of information in the Bill? We now know that some serious questions have to be answered regarding safety in our public transport system. For that reason, some people have been especially concerned about whether it is appropriate to continue to hold negotiations between Railtrack, the Secretary of State and five of the London tube lines. Questions have been put about freedom of information and the background to those negotiations, but the Secretary of State has strenuously refused to supply an answer. If the amendment were accepted, would it mean that, if Railtrack did not want to disclose information, it would—or could—have the power to stop that disclosure? People are rightly concerned that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has been content to hold secret negotiations with Railtrack, despite concerns about safety, and that he continues to refuse to allow information to enter the public domain in any shape or form. We have no information about his negotiations: we know nothing about the tender, or about the demands he is making with regard to safety. The answer to those and many other questions is that we simply do not know. Perhaps when he has finished consulting his colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning, the Under-Secretary will he able to answer our questions. If he cannot, I am sure that his right hon. Friend will take time off from his campaign duties to advise the House. In the current circumstances of concern about public transport, secrecy is unfair. Why should the travelling public not know what is happening to the currently publicly owned tube? Why, in the age of open government, can information pertaining to the relationship between the PPP and, for example, the Civil Aviation Authority, be obliged to be made public, whereas information pertaining to discussions between Ministers and Railtrack on the PPP remain secret? What guarantees are being made in respect of safety? We know that large numbers of trains on the underground—a system held in public ownership—have gone through red lights. We know that a train protection system is in use on the underground. As Ministers will know, concerns have been raised by those working on underground trains about the adequacy of that train protection system. Will the PPP arbiter be obliged to keep background details about such safety issues, and can that information be made public? Will the arbiter have access to all the papers currently in the possession of the Secretary of State as he takes advice on those issues? Will he have access, as the House does not, to the unpublished Deloitte and Touche report on the PPP, which we believe says that the PPP cannot work and will not work commercially without a dramatic increase in fares and a diminution of service provision to the public? What access will the Assembly have to information held by the arbiter? If the people of London cannot have it, will the Assembly be allowed to see it? Subsection (4) of amendment No. 332 would appear to give the Secretary of State the order-making power to modify the preceding subsections, as and when he wants, and so to undermine subsections (2) and (3). What is the reason for that provision, and in what circumstances would it be used by the Secretary of State? The amendments would appear to be ill-considered. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide a genuinely satisfactory explanation and tell us that the PPP arbiter will be able to gain the necessary information and that all the information will be made public. Perpetuating a climate of secrecy is the wrong way to proceed in the current circumstances. As for the on-going negotiations with Railtrack, does amendment No. 332 mean that Railtrack could be obliged to disclose information, or that the company could say, as the amendment suggests it could, that the information was not for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Secretary of State or others of any or his or, as the case may be, its functions", and so could remain secret?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The House heard earlier the rather weak and confused grounds on which the mayor is to be denied the opportunity to issue bonds. Now we have heard the Minister's explanation of the current group of amendments, but many doubts about the PPP remain. First and foremost of those concerns is the role of Railtrack in the public-private partnership, to which amendment No. 332 is highly relevant. We need to know what negotiations with Railtrack are taking place; why the subsurface lines have not been put out to tender; and whether there is any likelihood that that might in future be subject to legal challenge on the grounds that it is anti-competitive. What is the timetable for signing the PPP contracts? Earlier, I quoted a response to a parliamentary question in which I was told that the contracts would be signed when they were ready; that is not a satisfactory response. If they are to be signed in 18 months or two years, what impact will that have on the availability of funds for investing in the tube during the period before the PPP kicks in? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions in detail. We have faced continuous stalling, month after month and year after year. Unless the Minister is able to provide a satisfactory response, many hon. Members will go away believing that the PPP is off course and bound to fail.

Sir Sydney Chapman (Conservative, Chipping Barnet)

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). We are clearly entering new territory with the concept of the public-private partnership. My view is that a service or industry is either in the public sector or privatised, and that to try to mix the two does not augur well unless the parties involved have information and unless that information is open to the public to judge for themselves. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked why the subsurface lines were not being put out to tender. Incidentally, I should like to put on record the fact that "subsurface" is a contradiction in terms, but, setting that aside, there must be some explanation. In addition, if one is to try to make the concept of public-private partnership work, the length of the contracts to be awarded is crucial, as are the back-up compensation clauses for the private organisation that has its tender accepted. A myriad of issues must be addressed—if not before the Bill is passed, then when the PPP concept begins to take shape. The Government have prided themselves on open government and joined-up government; sadly, in respect of putting flesh on the bones of PPP, they have achieved neither.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I rise to support the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) in respect of his concerns about amendment No. 332 and the restrictions on disclosure of information. As the hon. Gentleman said, we debated the matter in Committee, where we expressed our concern about the financial modelling of the PPP scheme. Ministers told us that we had nothing to worry about and that huge fare increases were not contained in the modelling. The consultants' report which the Government used to dream up the scheme contained no assumption of huge tube fare rises. However, only recently, London Transport has announced that fares on the London underground are to rise by 7 per cent.—that is incredibly worrying as it goes against the spirit of many of the speeches made by Ministers in the Committee.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

I am struck by the way in which, whereas Ministers have resorted throughout our two-day debate to saying that all the Lords amendments are technical, if we examine one amendment and pull it apart, we find that it is anything but technical and has implications that extend well beyond the scope of the Bill.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Returning to the matter of fares, the PPP scheme and future versions of the PPP scheme as considered by the PPP arbiter, are we going to find in future years that large fare increases have been negotiated yet again? Behind the PPP and the secret negotiations, is there a hidden agenda of fare rises stretching into the future? If London Transport is prepared to announce publicly a 7 per cent. rise before the GLA elections, what is being decided behind closed doors, out of public view? I am incredibly worried by the amendments, which make problems that were highlighted in Committee even worse. Most disturbing is the fact that, during the run-up to the GLA elections, when the different parties put before the people of London their different models and agendas for London transport, we shall not know what financial modelling assumptions lie behind the PPP scheme and the negotiations that will be going on at that time. 6.30 pm Perhaps the Greater London Authority, as it takes power and starts its work, will not be informed until the PPP has been signed. Until it has been signed, the mayor will not be privy to the assumptions behind it. The absurd situation could therefore arise in which the mayor and the Assembly members had fought an election without knowing the fare increases that had been debated in the negotiations on the PPP. Such secrecy makes a mockery of open government and of the Government's claim that they are modernising their methods of government. I hope that the Government will withdraw amendment No. 332 because the debate exposes their vulnerability to attack during the election campaign. We shall be able to claim that they try to prevent debate and refuse to provide information on their plans. Unless the Government are prepared to withdraw such gagging measures, I warn the Minister that we shall have the benefit of the Government's actions as proof to back up our argument that they have a secret agenda of fare rises.

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

I want to speak briefly to the amendments, and pick up one or two of the anxieties that have been expressed by Conservative Front Benchers and my hon. Friends. The PPP and its genesis could be seen to symbolise the Bill and the large number of amendments that have been tabled at almost every stage of its passage. In its Commons and Lords stages, the Government have attempted to create on the hoof an elaborate architecture for the fabrication of the funding for investment in London Transport. It beggars belief that, at this stage, Ministers are unable to come to the House and provide detailed figures and the assurances that we need about how the PPP will work in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said that we are still told by Ministers that we will not know when the PPP is ready: that it will be ready when it is ready and signed when it is signed. That is unsatisfactory both for mayoral candidates and for the House. We are being asked to approve legislation tonight that will establish a procedure whose implications we cannot foresee or understand. Ministers seem unable or unwilling to share with us the Bill's consequences. We have no information about the PPP's long-term cost to the public purse. Yet that is fundamental to assessing whether the PPP constitutes the right way to proceed. How can we have a serious mayoral debate about investment in London transport when amendment No. 332 and many other provisions in the Bill deny us essential information about the PPP? I hope that the Government will withdraw the amendment and rethink a structure that would leave Londoners with an unsatisfactory arrangement and cost the taxpayer far more than necessary.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The amendment has provoked a wide range of grievances and charges. I shall attempt to deal with them more or less in chronological order. The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) began by complaining about lack of information on amendments. I acknowledge that there is much to be tackled. However, as the hon. Gentleman should concede, we have been scrupulous in ensuring that the Opposition in another place were sent explanatory notes on all major amendments during the Bill's progress through the House so that they were able to scrutinise them fully. In response to a specific request in the form of a parliamentary question on Monday last week by the hon. Gentleman, we were able to place in the Library on Wednesday explanatory notes on all new clauses and schedules that were added in another place. The explanatory note on amendment No. 332, which has proved so contentious, was available from the Library almost a week ago—in good time for deliberations on it today. Various points have been made about the proposed London Underground public-private partnership. Let me deal with one of them—safety. I cannot emphasise too strongly that safety is paramount when considering the PPP. We shall take account of any lessons of the Southall and Ladbroke Grove accidents that have implications for the underground. The PPP deal is structured so that public sector London Underground will continue to have responsibility for the statutory railway safety case for the whole underground. The PPP infrastructure companies will take over existing safety cases that are agreed with Her Majesty's railway inspectorate. They form part of London Underground's overall safety case and the PPP companies will be obliged to maintain them. I stress that public sector London Underground Ltd. will have overall responsibility for safety. It will be the guiding mind on safety on the London Underground under the PPP. There has been some scaremongering about fares from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. On a point of information, the report that the hon. Gentleman had in mind was not by Deloitte and Touche, as the hon. Gentleman claimed, but by Chantrey Vellacott. That report suggested that the PPP would lead to a 30 per cent. increase in fares. The analysis in the note that Chantrey Vellacott published is flawed.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

Of course, I was right: there are two reports. The Chantrey Vellacott report is available to everyone; we have all read it. It claims that tube fares will increase by 30 per cent. under the PPP—the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) claims that the increase will be 40 per cent. The other report analyses the various options for the future of London Underground. It has been on the Secretary of State's desk, but he refuses to make it public because it claims that the PPP proposals are barmy and that the Government should not proceed with them.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that all the reports that claim that there will be vast increases in London Underground fares under the PPP are wrong. I shall explain the reasons briefly.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a second, I shall say a little more about the Chantrey Vellacott report, which has been mentioned in the debate.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

We did not ask the Minister to say more about it.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman may not have done so, but one of his sidekicks on the Liberal Democrat Benches asked about it. Therefore, I shall deal with that point first. We shall deal with other reports in due course. There is a fundamental position on fares on London Underground under the PPP, about which I shall speak shortly. I have not forgotten the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), but I want to comment on the Chantrey Vellacott report first. We do not accept that fares will increase on the scale that Chantrey Vellacott suggested. Its working assumptions were flawed. It is an error to assume that the bulk of initial investment will be financed through borrowing. Neither does Chantrey Vellacott take account of the efficiency savings that will result from London Underground having a stable longterm investment programme. The savings have been variously projected at between 15 and 20 per cent., so they will be substantial. We have repeatedly stated that we shall award the contracts only if they represent best value. We would not be embarking on a PPP competition if we did not believe that there was a very good chance of achieving best value for the taxpayer. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his patience; I now give way.

John Wilkinson (Conservative, Ruislip - Northwood)

I am grateful to the Minister for his patience, and I appreciate the opportunity to intervene now. Will he assure the House that, when the PPP finally becomes operational, annual fare rises on the London underground will be significantly lower than the inflation-busting increases that Londoners have had to endure since May 1997?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point, because I want to come to precisely that issue. The economic modelling on which the PPP proposals have been based has operated on the assumption that fares would increase by no more than the retail prices index plus 1 per cent. in the next two years, and in line with inflation after that. Therefore, I assure him and the wider public, whom he is attempting to terrify, that there is absolutely no question of significant fare increases under the PPP. It will be funded by the efficiency savings achieved by a long-term stable rolling programme of investment.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

I am grateful that the Minister has tried to reassure the House—I am not sure that he has succeeded—that, once the PPP is in operation, fare increases will not be of the size that we have just experienced. Is that because there will be many more huge fare increases before the PPP is signed? Is that why there has been such a delay in signing the PPP? Just like the Tories did before rail privatisation, the Government might want to sneak in a few high fare increases.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Rather than sitting there preparing his intervention, the hon. Gentleman should have listened more carefully I made it absolutely clear that, in the first two years leading up to the PPP, the assumption in the economic modelling is that fares will not increase by more than the retail prices index plus 1 per cent. There is no question of huge increases leading up to that point. From spring next year and up to the conclusion of the PPP, the mayor will have a stake in the arrangements for the PPP, including those for the fare levels. I am certain that the new mayor of London will not be in the business of encouraging substantial fare increases. The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) referred to the Deloitte and Touche report and made several accusations. I confirm that we are not aware of any Deloitte and Touche report on the PPP. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the study that my Department commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers, which was concluded last year. We published a summary of it, but we cannot publish it in its entirety because of commercially confidentiality. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. It certainly did not say that fare increases would result from the PPP. On the achievability of the PPP, I reiterate what I said in an earlier debate: London Transport announced on 7 October that five consortiums have pre-qualified in the competition for deep tubes and will be invited to tender for the deep tube infrastructure contracts. The invitation to tender was issued on 19 October and bids are due back next March. The House will be pleased to hear that there was a strong field of applications, and that reflects the keen interest for the PPP in the marketplace. It is on stream and will be achieved.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

Before the Minister leaves the subject, will he tell the House how much preparations for the PPP have so far cost? What is his estimate of the total cost, including all the expenses of legal and financial advice from inside and outside his Department? Will that be paid for out of the fare box or out of taxation?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The right hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek in raising that issue. Few of us will forget that the cost of consultancies and preparations for the deeply flawed privatisation of the railways, which broke up our railway system into a hundred pieces, was about…650 million. The last parliamentary answer provided by the Government in response to a question about the cost of the preparations for the PPP stated that they had cost not more than…20 million to date. There is a massive difference between the extortionate costs that the right hon. Gentleman's Government imposed on the taxpayer and the extremely reasonable and cautious attitude adopted by this Government. Reference was made to negotiations with Railtrack and to the provision of information. I emphasise that amendment No. 332 is not relevant to the negotiations of PPP agreements, including those with Railtrack. It relates to periodic reviews of contracts after they have been entered into. Information on the negotiation of PPPs will be made available in the normal way to the National Audit Office. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has also made it clear that details of the public sector comparator, another issued raised by Opposition Members, will be published.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

If the PPP arbiter wishes to review the terms and conditions of a contract with Railtrack once the mayor is in post, will it be possible to disclose that information and make it public?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Yes. New clause 332 restricts the disclosure only of information that is irrelevant to the statutory duties of the arbiter and other statutory bodies listed. That is a reasonable protection to third parties, such as suppliers to PPP companies.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Will the Minister clarify at what point he expects the public sector comparator test for the PPP to be complete, what cost he expects to have been incurred at that point and who will pick up the bill should the public sector comparator test reveal that the PPP is not financially viable?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The hon. Gentleman raises two issues. I am not able—the hon. Gentleman could not reasonably expect me to be able—to speculate about the final costs of the consultancy and preparatory work for the PPP. No one could do that. I think that I have demonstrated clearly, however, that the Government have adopted an extremely prudent and cautious approach to such costs. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that we will publish the public sector comparator before the conclusion of the PPP. When that occurs—we presume that it will be in 2001—the hon. Gentleman, other Members and the public will be able to judge on the basis of that test. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that, if the public sector comparator were negative about the PPP, there would be no question of our going forward with it.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

rose—

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

rose—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I see several Members wishing to challenge me on that point, but I saw the hon. Member for Witney first. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. We may wish to divide the House on the amendment, so it must be made crystal clear. Is the Minister saying that amendment No. 332 will not stop the PPP arbiter from obtaining all the background information on the negotiations with Railtrack, the consultation documents and the advice to the Secretary of State, and that that information can be published—yes or no?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I shall revert to that. I had intended to go on to the safety issue. Let me deal with that before I deal with the question about the role of the arbiter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on.] It is a matter of good order in responding to the points raised in the debate, as I am sure hon. Members understand. Let me deal with the issue of whether amendment No. 332 covers disclosure affecting functions relating to the Health and Safety Executive and safety provisions. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue. Subsection (2) makes it clear that the provisions of the new clause do not apply to any disclosure of information which is made"— I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to subsection (f)— for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by the Health and Safety Commission or the Health and Safety Executive of any of its functions under any enactment or of facilitating the carrying out by any enforcing authority, within the meaning of Part I of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, of any function under a relevant statutory provision within the meaning of that Act". That makes it crystal clear that no matter relating to health and safety on the underground will be subject to any prevention of disclosure under the terms of the Bill. On the broader issue of freedom of information, I remind the hon. Gentleman that amendment No. 332 provides statutory protection to third parties against disclosure of information collected by the arbiter, except where it is necessary to carry out the specific statutory functions referred to in the clause. It is enforceable by means of a civil injunction. The hon. Gentleman asked how that was compatible with freedom of information principles. I find that an extraordinary question.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

Why?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

For the simple reason that the provisions are again based on the Railways Act 1993, but again, for reasons of proportionality, provide a civil rather than a criminal sanction. In other words, the legislation introduced by the Conservative Government imposed a criminal sanction for the disclosure of information. The legislation that the present Government are introducing imposes a civil rather than a criminal sanction. The House will recognise where the balance of openness and transparency lies between a criminal sanction for those seeking to disclose information and a civil sanction in that situation.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

I wanted to give my hon. Friend a little time to catch up with the other issues that have been raised. Many people are deeply concerned about the PPP and the possibility that it will fail and that Londoners will be saddled with an expensive bill and large fare rises to pay for it. Will the matter come back before the House before the PPP is signed, or will the mayor to be appointed next year have to implement the deal that has been done? Will the scrutiny of the PPP be for the mayor and the Assembly, or for the House before such a deal is signed?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I can reassure my hon. Friend. Of course there will be a report back to the House. It is inconceivable that, the Secretary of State and the House having sanctioned the PPP, the matter should not be brought back in due course to the House of Commons.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

As we all know, the Minister is filibustering while he desperately tries to obtain the answers. Any accusations of filibustering made by the Government will sit uncomfortably in the House. I hope that the Minister has now got the answers. Will he wind up the debate by telling the House whether, when the mayor is in place, if the PPP arbiter wishes, he will be given all the advice behind the commercial dealings currently going on with the Secretary of State and Railtrack? Will that information be made available to the PPP arbiter and will it be made public—yes or no?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Not all of it. Despite the hilarity on the Opposition Benches, it is an entirely reasonable proposition that there will be elements of commercial confidentiality, which I clearly recollect the previous Government were only too eager to plead on many occasions. It is not an intrinsically unreasonable principle. I have already made it clear that amendment No. 332 is not related to the negotiation of contracts and that information on all PPPs will be available to the National Audit Office, which will no doubt wish to scrutinise them.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat, Kingston and Surbiton)

The Minister told the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that there would be a report back to the House before the PPP was signed. Are the Government minded to allow the House to vote on that report, and will it contain details of the negotiations behind the PPP—details that we have not yet seen?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

That question is a little premature. It will be a matter for the usual channels, but undoubtedly the Secretary of State will wish to report back to the House. With that, I urge the House to support amendment No. 332 and other amendments in this group.

ADDITION OR VARIATION OF A NETWORK SERVICE

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 240 to 267, 273 and 274.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

This group of amendments provides further safeguards for the interests of holders of, and applicants for, London service permits. They respond to concerns raised in this House at Committee stage. The amendments also make improvements to consultation procedures for both London bus network services and London permit services.

POWER OF AUTHORITY TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO THE FRANCHISING DIRECTOR

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The amendments, which concern railways and trams, deal with services on the national rail network and aspects of Transport for London rail services. They will achieve a number of things, such as giving effect to the undertaking given on Report by my predecessor to introduce measures that will more fully define the relationship between the mayor and the Strategic Rail Authority. That undertaking was generally welcomed by Conservative Members and, indeed, in the other place. The Bill will thus fully provide for the mayor to have a strong voice in rail, while ensuring that that will not detract from the Strategic Rail Authority's overall responsibility for services on the national network. We have taken a balanced approach which is designed to encourage a constructive relationship. For example, Transport for London and the franchising director will be under a duty to co-operate in the provision of services, and the franchising director will be required to consult the mayor about his plans for London rail fares and services. The amendments also set out the procedures to be followed for the consideration of proposals to discontinue rail services operated by Transport for London, primarily on the underground. They transfer to the mayor the current responsibility of the Secretary of State to take decisions on proposed discontinuance of services, but otherwise there is no significant alteration. They also provide that London Transport and Transport for London will not be constrained—for example, by the terms of London Transport's exemption from the national licensing and access regulatory regime—from entering into appropriate arrangements to integrate the tube and national rail networks. The amendments place restrictions on the mayor's ability to franchise or contract out certain train and station-operating functions. The purpose is to ensure that underground trains and stations continue to be operated by a publicly owned, publicly accountable London Underground in line with the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 15 June. Finally, they transfer to the mayor certain responsibilities of the Secretary of State in respect of the docklands light railway and Croydon tramlink, and provide for the continuation of the arrangements for penalty fares on Croydon tramlink.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I support the amendments. It was clear at the beginning of the process that there was a major flaw in the Government's proposals: the mayor would have very little say over rail services in London and his ability to give guidance to the franchising director would hardly be likely to achieve integration of rail, tube and bus services in London. I therefore welcome this slight amendment, which will ensure that the mayor is also able to give instructions. I hope that there will be co-operation between the mayor and the franchising director and that it will not be necessary to give instructions, but it is important that such a power exists. It will mean that the mayor should be able to have a greater say over the quality of train services in London. Those of us who commute regularly know that every passenger is affected every day by overcrowding, cancellations and dirty trains. I support the change and hope that, as a result of it, the mayor's ability to give instructions to the franchising director will help to achieve the leap to better-quality rail services in London.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I listened to what the Minister said about the effects of the amendments. Those to clause 161 and amendment No. 288 refer to instructions, guidance and consultation in respect of the mayor, the authority and the franchising director, which is all very well. A few minutes ago, the Minister said that they refer in particular to instances in which there might be proposals for discontinuing services. Epping Forest is in Essex, not London. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that thousands of my constituents depend on London underground services? The Central line runs out to Chigwell, Loughton, Theydon Bois and even to Epping, but my constituents—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

To Ongar.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

From a sedentary position, the Minister says that the Central line runs to Ongar. It no longer does so.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

The hon. Gentleman has not been a Minister for long.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I know; he has forgotten about Ongar. I was given assurances by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—who might become mayor of London herself—when she was a Minister that the track between Epping and Ongar would be protected as railway track. [HON. MEMBERS: "Early pledge."] It was an early pledge, indeed, and I am pleased to put that on the record. At present, the service runs all the way to Epping, but my constituents in Epping Forest, who are not residents of London, do not have a vote for either the mayor or the authority. Therefore, one could hardly expect either the mayor or members of the Assembly to put the interests of my constituents high on their list of priorities when they consult, or issue instructions or guidance to, the franchising director or deal with any other issue concerning the future of London underground. London underground is extremely important to my constituents. I consider it to be one of my first duties as Member of Parliament for Epping Forest to protect the future of London underground services to my constituency. Will the Minister guarantee that, in conjunction with all those other people who will be consulted about the interests of the people they represent in Greater London, I will be consulted and will continue to have the right to speak in the Chamber on behalf of my constituents, who depend utterly on London underground? They will have no voice in the Authority or with the mayor—only with their Member of Parliament. The House must not lose its right to discuss those matters.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate. I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on beginning to fly solo, although he seems to hit the odd bit of turbulence when he is forced away from his script. I have noticed that his instructor's hands occasionally twitch back towards the controls, but let us hope the hon. Gentleman gains confidence as time goes on. Listening to the Minister's introductory comments, one might have thought that the amendments were fairly minor and would have relatively little effect. The reality, of course, is very different, which is a common theme throughout the Bill. According to my analysis, amendments Nos. 288, 289, 290, 291, 294, 295, 296 and 554 all incorporate new clauses to the Bill. That is worth thinking about, at least for a moment, in relation to the helter-skelter way in which we are considering the amendments.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

We are not allowed a minute.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

As my right hon. Friend says, we are not even allowed a minute. It is worth pointing out that substantial changes are being made by a group of amendments which we have again to debate at great speed. Clause 161(8) refers to the functions of the authority that are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority. There is a lot of confusion in the provisions about the powers of the mayor, and where they finish and those of the Secretary of State or, in due course, the Strategic Rail Authority—start. Some of the amendments are to include the "instructions", as well as guidance, which are to be given by the mayor to the franchising director. The amendments depend heavily on good will existing between the mayor and the Secretary of State. One could envisage those two being from different political parties, but that would be as nothing compared with the possibility of their being from the same party if the mayor has been elected in spite of his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government—[Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and the Regions is continuing her running commentary on all Opposition speeches. How paltry our debates would be without her contributions. Clearly, problems will arise because, if the new mayor has had difficulties in being approved as a candidate for the Labour party, or in being elected to the post of mayor, he or she may not be entirely well disposed towards the Secretary of State—whoever that might be. The amendments seem to face in two directions. They appear—as the Minister would like them to—to beef up the mayor's powers. The Minister echoed the words of Lord Whitty in the other place when he said that the mayor would be a "voice for London". In reality, however, the amendments might bring the mayor into conflict with the Secretary of State. Although the mayor is supposed to stand up for Londoners—we have heard that theme more than once in this and previous debates—he or she must also deal with the Secretary of State and, in due course, the Strategic Rail Authority. The current Secretary of State has a penchant for rail summits and the like, and seeks to interfere more and more at all levels in the operation of the railways, both within and outside London. Lord Whitty talked about defining the relationship between the mayor and the franchising director"— and, in due course, between the mayor and the proposed Strategic Rail Authority. He said that the Government were committed to giving the mayor a strong voice in rail, but that the mayor's powers should not detract from the wider strategic responsibilities of the franchising director and the strategic rail authority. It is difficult to see, where there is also a duty to consult the mayor over proposed changes to service levels and fares, what will happen if the mayor takes a radically different view from that of those other bodies. As Lord Whitty pointed out, the franchising director will have to implement the mayor's instructions and guidance unless to do so will 'prevent or seriously hinder him' complying with the Secretary of State's guidance. He then said, no doubt with a straight face: The amendment preserves that principle but gives the mayor more flexibility".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 1999; Vol. 603, c. 544-55.] It seems to be left entirely to the franchising director to decide whether what the mayor wants would have an adverse impact on the remainder of the network. That was left in the air in an exchange between Lord Whitty and Baroness Hamwee. It would be interesting to hear whether the Government's thoughts on that point have changed in the interim. 7.15 pm My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) made some excellent points on behalf of her constituents and expressed concern about the closure of services. One of the amendments proposes that the mayor, rather than the Secretary of State, should make decisions on closures, although there will still be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. Although we hear a lot of rhetoric about giving the mayor a voice on subjects such as railways, ultimately, the Secretary of State will retain a lot of power to ensure that the mayor cannot kick over the traces and cause too many difficulties. Those comments apply also to the provisions for penalty fares. As with other groups of amendments, we should have liked much more time to consider these matters in more detail. A look behind the Minister's introductory remarks, reveals that some of these amendments incorporate fairly complex new clauses into the Bill. Unless the Minister's explanation is superlatively good, I intend to press amendment No. 294 to a vote.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

May I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for his support on this matter? The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) made an interesting and useful intervention, which permits me to offer her some reassurances about the rights of her constituents who live outside the area covered by the GLA. Schedule 9 gives Transport for London powers similar to those currently enjoyed by London Transport, under which the latter runs services to destinations outside London. There is no reason why Transport for London should do differently. Moreover, it will be the mayor's duty, under clause 123, to promote services to, from and within London. Similarly, those aggrieved about closures outside London will be able to appeal to the Secretary of State, as at present. On the representation of people outside London, Transport for London will inform local authorities outside London affected by the proposals of its plans for fares and services. The Assembly will also be required to have regard to the interests of rail users outside London when it makes appointments to the London Transport Users Committee. The mayor will also consult widely on his or her transport strategy.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I sincerely thank the Minister for those straight answers to my questions. Could my constituents have a representative role by being appointed to the consultative committee?

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

My understanding is that they could, bearing in mind that the responsibilities of the LTUC, as it will be called, extend well outside the London area—from Bicester in the north to Gatwick in the south. Thus there will be opportunities for representation on that committee. The LTUC has statutory duties with regard to the representation of rail and other transport users outside as well as within London. It will have a close relationship with the mayor and the Assembly, and it will expect those wider responsibilities to be taken on board by the GLA. The hon. Lady can therefore rest reasonably assured about the future of railway services in her locality. The hon. Lady also asked whether she would continue to have the right to speak about those matters in this Chamber. Of course she will. However, some 7 million Londoners currently have no right to govern their affairs. Under the GLA, they will have precisely that right, as they elect the mayor and the Assembly. On the issues raised by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), I would expect tensions occasionally to arise between the mayor and the Secretary of State. That is the nature of politics, and it would be improper if it were otherwise. What one seeks to do in legislation of this nature is to create a framework for conflict resolution. That, I think, is a fruitful process. The hon. Member for Eastbourne raised issues relating to the mayor's powers in regard to the franchising director. It is as well to remember that, in all that he or she does, the mayor will be operating with the mandate of many millions of Londoners. That is a powerful basis on which to relate to the railway authorities. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Bill gives the mayor powers to issue instructions and guidance—terminology taken from the Railways Act 1993, introduced by his own Government. However, we also make it perfectly clear that the franchising director, the Secretary of State and the relevant railway bodies will need to have their primary responsibility, the national rail network, firmly before their eyes. If the issues and guidance offered by the mayor seemed to impinge on that, the national interest would—probably rightly—need to prevail. What we envisage, however, is a positive, constructive and fruitful relationship between the mayor and the railway authorities. We are delighted to commend to the House amendments that meet a widespread demand for the mayor to be given more precise and more effective powers as a strong voice on behalf of railway users, in both London and the surrounding areas.

New Clause

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS ON JOURNEYS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The Government understand that the London concessionary fares scheme is much valued by elderly and disabled Londoners. That is why we are firmly committed to ensuring that users of the scheme can continue to enjoy its travel benefits. The Bill makes provision for those travel concessions to continue on services that will transfer from the control of London Transport to Transport for London. We have given careful consideration to a number of proposals for improvements to the scheme. As a result, we have amended the Bill to update the scheme and to help maintain its stability. For the statutory reserve scheme, the start and finish times will be brought into line with those currently in the voluntary scheme, and arrangements for determining the costs of the reserve scheme will be clarified. We have also given the boroughs powers to set up a statutory joint committee dealing with concessionary fares, which will have the option of taking decisions on the basis of qualified majority voting. The amendments will bring up to date the concessionary fares provisions first enacted in 1984. They will increase the stability of the scheme by making it easier for the boroughs to reach agreement every year. They will also provide further reassurance to users that concessions will continue to be provided. These amendments have the support of the Association of London Government and users' groups, and were welcomed in the other place. On penalty fares, the Government have noted the views of Members of both Houses—expressed both during the passage of this Bill and when writing on behalf of constituents—about the operation of London Transport's penalty fares scheme. We are, of course, also aware of the considerable public interest in the subject. Lords amendment No. 719 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish an independent penalty fares appeal body, if he is requested to do so by the mayor. We think it likely that, once the mayor has taken stock of the penalty fares procedures, he or she will make such a request. We should not, however, wish to prejudge the mayor's consideration of the issue, particularly in the light of the reforms that London Transport has established after its review of tube penalty fares. We think that the mayor will want to see how those reforms bed down before deciding to invoke the powers in the amendment. The amendment also gives a general indication of the ground that the regulations may cover. If the mayor were to request the Secretary of State to make such regulations, we would expect there to be close consultation between the mayor, the Secretary of State and other interested parties before the regulations were drawn up.

Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat, Sutton and Cheam)

I should like to speak briefly to the amendments dealing with the concessionary fares issue, which concerned hon. Members greatly in our earlier consideration of the Bill. I also want to express our appreciation of the fact that the Government have at last listened to the representations made not only by hon. Members both here and in the other place, but by the many thousands of people across London who asked the Government to think again about the way in which the Bill would have put at risk the future of the London concessionary fares scheme. I know from my own constituency case load that some of my constituents, particularly those involved in a seniors' forum in my constituency, were most anxious that the provisions should be included in the Bill. I know that they are pleased to note that the scheme is secure, and look forward to seeing it continue well into the future.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I express my gratitude for the hon. Gentleman's warm words. We regard inclusion of the provisions as an example of consensual government that should be a model for the way in which the Greater London Authority conducts its business.

THE LONDON TRANSPORT USERS' COMMITTEE

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

These are new and exciting times for users of transport services in London, and we believe that, with its wider remit, the London Transport Users Committee will successfully build on the best traditions of the London Regional Passengers Committee. As part of the new democratic structures for London, it will ensure that the user's voice is clearly heard when the mayor and Assembly consider transport provision in the capital. The amendments are essentially technical ones, filling out the LTUC remit and more clearly defining its relationship with the assembly. The amendments also reflect the careful consideration that we have given to some of the points raised by peers of all parties during the Bill's consideration in the other place. Lords amendment No. 341, for example, deals with the concerns of Liberal Democrat Members, both in this place—in particular the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—and in the other place—in particular Baroness Thomas of Walliswood and Baroness Hamwee—of ensuring that the committee is properly representative of the wider community of rail users in the area for which the LTUC is a rail user consultative committee. Similarly, Lord Dixon-Smith and Baroness Miller sought assurances on audit and account, which we have provided for in Lords amendment No. 721. 7.45 pm The amendments also include our proposals for the Assembly to issue guidance and directions to the LTUC and to establish firmly the new relationship between the Assembly and the committee.

New Clause

CHAPTER XA— WATER TRANSPORT

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

This group of amendments deals with rivers and waterways. Lords amendment No. 354 gives Transport for London power to provide amenities and facilities on the Thames and other waterways in London. Lords amendment No. 355 transfers responsibility for the operation of the Woolwich ferry. Lords amendment No. 356 ensures that there is no doubt about the validity of transfers of property, rights and liabilities that are transferred to London Regional Transport between 31 March 1999 and the coming into force of this clause, or that are subject to transfer agreements made during that period. Lords amendment No. 697 provides Transport for London with a power to make byelaws about piers that it owns or operates. There was considerable debate in another place on some of the amendments in this group. In the light of concerns expressed by the Port of London authority and British Waterways, the clauses were further amended in another place. Therefore, Lords amendment No. 354 clarifies that Transport for London must obtain any necessary consents or licences before commencing works on waterway amenities or facilities, and Lords amendment No. 697 ensures that TfL byelaws for landing places do not conflict or interfere with certain byelaws made by the Port of London authority. Tourism and the river have been a subject of concern to Members in both Houses. The Government, of course, recognise the importance of tourism to river services. However, we have taken note of the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members in this and the other place on behalf of a particular operator. The Government's proposals for the mayor and TfL envisage an integrated approach to the use of the river, which is not limited purely to public passenger transport. The mayor will be responsible for promoting both public transport and tourism. Ahead of the provisions coming into effect, the Government expect London River Services—as a predecessor body to TfL—to work in a similar manner. We have every confidence that it is doing just that. The Government have listened to the concerns that have been expressed—which is why my noble Friend Lord Whitty recently undertook that we would write to the chairman of London River Services to reiterate the point. We shall be doing so shortly. I hope that that further explanation will reassure hon. Members that the interests of tourism on the river are fully recognised in the Bill's provisions and in the interim period before TfL is established.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

The alliance to which the Minister referred consists of the hon. Members for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and me. We discussed the matter in Committee, but did so before some of the developments had occurred. There is no possibility that I shall be able today to do justice to the subject, and I can only plead—through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and given the fact that it is an all-party coalition—that Madam Speaker might be prepared to contemplate granting an Adjournment debate on the subject early in the next Session. The Minister—whom I acknowledge knows about the issues—said that Lord Whitty will be writing to the chairman of London River Services. Although that calmed nerves in their Lordships' House, I should myself feel much better if he included in the letter an expectation, first, that London River Services will appoint a director with experience of and responsibility for tourism, and secondly, that an independent study will be made of the current impact of the introduction of transport services on current tourism services, so that both perspectives could be understood and viewed in a more balanced manner.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, and look forward to further exchanges in the Chamber on that subject.

ESTABLISHMENT, MEMBERSHIP AND DUTY TO MAINTAIN POLICE FORCE

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

All the amendments in this group are connected with the membership of the Metropolitan police authority. They fall into three categories which I will address in turn—magistrate members of the MPA, the position of the deputy mayor on the MPA and the upper age limit of MPA members. Amendment No. 426 heads a set of seven amendments which deal with the appointment of magistrate members of the Metropolitan police authority. Now that the Access to Justice Act 1999 has been passed, we need to make a number of changes to reflect the new arrangements that will apply to the administration of magistrates courts in London. Amendment No. 748 is the key amendment. It will substitute new arrangements for the appointment of the four magistrate members of the MPA. Paragraph 5 of schedule 21 to the Bill, as introduced in the other place, provided that the appointments would be made by a joint committee of the selection panels for the magistrates courts committees within the Metropolitan police district. There are 21 such selection panels, so it would be quite a task for them to join together to form a single panel to make the appointments. As the House will be aware, the Access to Justice Act 1999 establishes a new Londonwide body called the Greater London magistrates courts authority. That body will replace the existing magistrates courts committees in London, which will in turn mean the disappearance of the MCC selection panels. The GLMCA will not assume its full powers until April 2001, but work is already under way in relation to the appointment of its members. A selection panel is to be set up for that purpose around the turn of the year, and we think that that panel would be the ideal body to make the four magistrate appointments to the MPA. This is what Amendment No. 748 will achieve. Amendment No. 426 is consequential. It provides that the body or person who makes appointments to the GLMCA—the selection panel to which I have just referred—must be consulted by the Secretary of State when he is considering reducing the number of MPA members. That will replace the current provision in the Bill whereby it is the MCC selection panels that must be consulted. Amendments Nos. 747, 753, 756, 757 and 758 make further changes consequent on the passage of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Amendments Nos. 745 and 755 clarify a couple of matters regarding the position of the deputy mayor on the Metropolitan police authority. Amendment No. 755 provides that the deputy mayor will cease to be a member of the MPA if he or she ceases to be deputy mayor. The Bill already makes specific provision as to what should happen when the deputy mayor acts as the mayor, and in such cases he or she will sometimes be required to step down temporarily from the MPA. The Bill as introduced into the other place was silent, however, on what should happen if the deputy mayor ceased to be the deputy—for example, following a resignation. Amendment No. 755 will rectify that position. As the deputy has his or her place by virtue of that office, we think it right that that individual should be required to step down as a member of the MPA on losing that office. Equally, provided that he or she remains an Assembly member, there is no reason why he or she should not remain eligible for reappointment to the MPA in his or her capacity as an Assembly member. That will be possible by virtue of paragraph 18 of schedule 21. Amendment No. 745 makes it clear that the deputy mayor will be subject to the disqualification criteria for MPA membership as set out in paragraph 8 of schedule 21. Those provisions cover standard disqualification issues such as bankruptcy and criminal convictions, and are very similar to those which the Bill applies to Assembly members, and hence to the deputy mayor. 8.15 pm The third set of amendments will remove the upper age limit to membership of the Metropolitan police authority. The Bill as introduced into the other place barred those aged 70 and over from being MPA members. The origin of that age limit, which applies to all police authorities, seems to be linked to the position of magistrates. Since magistrates have to retire at 70, magistrate members of police authorities have to resign on reaching that age. The reasoning appears to have been that equality of misery should be applied to other police authority members. The Bill had echoed the position in other police authorities, in line with our general approach that the structures and functions of the MPA should, as far as possible, be the same as those of authorities outside London. However, on reconsideration, it seemed wrong to exclude from police authority membership perfectly able people of advancing years. Amendment No. 749 therefore removes the upper age limit for MPA members. The Government will bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to remove the upper age limit for other police authorities in England and Wales. The other amendments in this group are consequential on amendment No. 749. They amend or remove references elsewhere in schedule 21 and also in schedule 3, to the Police Act 1996 as amended by schedule 2 of the Bill, which relate to the age limit of MPA membership or membership of the MPA independent member selection panel.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I support the proposals regarding membership of the MPA and the age limits involved. However, a question arises that I ask in ignorance as I do not know the answer. Will it be possible for the new Metropolitan police authority, whose democratisation we welcome, to change the age limits for officers in the police service? I will quite understand if the Minister cannot answer me now, but the new MPA is to be slightly different from other police authorities in the country. How much autonomy will it have over the management of its service, and to what extent will it be governed by the legislation covering the other police services in England and Wales? It would be wonderful—and more than I expect—if the Minister could give me an answer now. An answer later is what I expect, but in any event I hope that I get one.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, as I cannot give him an answer now. However, I undertake to write to him with the information that he seeks. I reiterate that the change that the Bill makes with regard to the Metropolitan police authority will be followed by legislation applying to other police authorities elsewhere in the country to remove the upper age limit.

New Clause

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As the House will be aware, this group of amendments covers four separate areas. I beg the House's indulgence to take a little time to explain their significance. The four areas covered are: senior ranks of the Metropolitan police; the secondment of Met officers to county forces affected by changes to the boundary of the Metropolitan police district; pensions of civilian staff of the Met; and consequential amendments to various statutes. I shall take each set of amendments in turn. Amendments Nos. 427 and 428 are concerned with the ranks of the Metropolitan police force. Amendment No. 427 inserts a new clause which makes transitional provision in respect of those individuals in one of the four senior ranks of the Metropolitan police—commissioner, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner or commander—on the date when the new provisions applying to the appointment of those ranks come into force. That date will be the 3 July 2000. The new clause provides that those individuals will be deemed to have been appointed under the new arrangements inserted into the Police Act 1996 by the Bill, rather than under the various Acts covering the Metropolitan police, under which they would originally have been appointed. Amendment No. 428 clarifies the wording in new section 9H of the 1996 Act, which sets out the ranks that may be held in the Metropolitan police. These are the four senior ranks to which I have already referred, and the ranks of superintendent, chief inspector, inspector, sergeant and constable. The wording of the Bill as introduced into another place might have been regarded as being ambiguous about whether the four senior ranks are indeed to be regarded as ranks of the Metropolitan police force. It is the intention that they should be treated as ranks and accordingly subject to regulations made under section 50 of the 1996 Act. The amended wording puts the matter beyond doubt. The next amendment, No. 429, deals with the secondment of Met officers. The new clause inserted by the amendment gives power to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to provide police officers to the county police forces of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. Those three forces will have the area that they police enlarged on 1 April 2000, when the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district are reduced to bring them into line with the outer boundary of Greater London. Changes to these boundaries are provided for by clause 255 of the Bill. In order to police their enlarged areas, Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey will need additional officers. It is of paramount importance that there is a seamless transfer of responsibilities between the Met and the county forces on 1 April 2000, so that the public do not suffer any loss of service during the handover period. The new clause will enable Met officers to be loaned to the county forces for a period of time which we would expect to be between six months and two years. During that period, they will retain the pay and allowances of a Metropolitan police officer, but will be under the direction and control of the chief constable of the force to which they have been seconded. At the conclusion of the secondment period, the officers would return to the Met. The third set of amendments is concerned with pensions. As the House will know, we wish to ensure that the organisational changes that we are introducing to London do not adversely affect the terms and conditions of the staff involved. That extends to their pension rights. Amendment No. 763, which is introduced by amendment No. 762, makes changes to section 15 of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1967, which governs the payment of pensions to the civil staff of the Metropolitan police. These staff are on the Metropolitan civil staff superannuation scheme, which is analogous to the principal civil service pension scheme. This means that such staff receive the same benefits as civil servants. Amendment No. 763 supersedes the minor amendments to section 15 of the 1967 Act, which schedule 22 to the Bill already provides. It has a number of features. First, it amends the definition of who is a member of the Metropolitan civil staffs—that is, the definition of those staff who are members of the MCSSS. At present, there are two categories within this definition. One group is staff employed under the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, or the receiver. The other category is made up of justices clerks in inner London. The latter category is not changed by the amendment, but the first is changed to staff who are employed by the Metropolitan police authority. This reflects the fact that the MPA will become the employer of Met staff on 3 July 2000. Secondly, the amendment preserves entitlements to benefits accrued under the MCSSS scheme by staff who are not current employees on 3 July 2000, and who are not therefore within this definition. Thirdly, the amendment provides for circumstances in which staff currently on the MCSSS—or who have built up entitlements under that scheme—might move on to another pension scheme. These are set out in sub-paragraph (2D) for post-July 2000 members of the MCSSS and in sub-paragraph (9) for former members of the MCSSS who have benefit entitlements. Amendment No. 535 inserts an extra provision into clause 322, which requires that the Secretary of State must consult with the MPA and obtain the consent of the Minister with responsibility for the civil service before making an order under that section relating to pension transfers of MPA employees. The likely purpose of any such order would be to place those employees on to the PCSPS. As I have already mentioned, clause 309 includes the MPA among the list of bodies covered by section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972. Hon. Members will be extremely relieved to know that I come now to the final set of amendments, which make various consequential changes to legislation dating back to the last century. Schedule 22 already makes numerous such changes, which are required to reflect the creation of the Metropolitan police authority and the eventual abolition of the office of receiver. The amendments add a few more to that list and to the repeal schedule—schedule 27. They apply various provisions to the MPA to bring it into line with other police authorities and delete a few more references to the receiver. Such references will be repealed as and when the powers are no longer exercised by the receiver. The amendments remove some references to Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, which will no longer be needed once those two posts are made police ranks, and tidy up a couple of references affected by the Access to Justice Act 1999.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We should like to place on record our thanks to the receiver—as we did in Committee—whose post will disappear in the transition. The receiver is a real person, despite having a title that most people would not understand. Intriguingly, he has played a constitutionally significant role in the history of the Met, and has been important in terms of its expenditure. In my experience, he has always done the job courteously and helpfully, and has assisted colleagues in trying to get to the bottom of matters that concern us and our constituents. We thank him for his work. Secondly, we support the Government's proposal to rationalise the boundaries of the Met with those of Greater London. That was not in the original Green Paper, but was agreed as a result of representations, and the new arrangements will give a logical boundary to the Met. It is therefore sensible, as the Minister said, for a transitional arrangement to allow people who are serving in Metropolitan police district areas which are in the counties surrounding Greater London to be temporarily seconded. We are relieved to note that they will return to the Met, which, on this occasion, will not be the subject of salami-slicing. The numbers are well below establishment and we should like to see them return to establishment levels. Thirdly—and I merely flag this up, as I know the Home Office is responsible for policing in the broader context—the police pensions bill in England and Wales rises every year, as more police officers retire, but the pensions must be funded out of the allocated money to police forces under the normal budgetary allocations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others have referred to the possibility of the pensions of fire, civil defence and ambulance personnel being taken out of the normal revenue budget context, sooner rather than later, and put somewhere else. In that way, a huge increase in pensions payments would not have to be paid for out of any increase in revenue provided by the Government in a particular year, which would be a welcome development. I appreciate that the Minister cannot simply announce a new policy now, but a request to colleagues in the Treasury and the Home Office as well as those in his Department to look positively at such proposals would be widely welcomed.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I wish to associate the Government with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the excellent work done by the receiver over 170-odd years.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Not the same one.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Of course not, but the post goes back a long time. I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, however, because although the Bill presages the disappearance of the post of receiver, it can be seen from the next group of amendments that that does not happen quite yet. The receiver will have a role to play for a bit longer. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the boundary changes and the transition arrangements. I shall not rise to the bait in respect of his comments about police numbers. The hon. Gentleman's third point about pension costs goes far wider than the Bill's remit, as he recognised. His comments are on the record and will be seen by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, but it would be wrong for me to make a commitment on something that goes far wider than the debate before us.

ABOLITION OF OFFICE OF RECEIVER

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 431, 432, 558, 560 and 570.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is the Government's policy that the criminal justice agencies should share the same boundaries, namely those of the police force areas in England and Wales. In the case of probation, that means that the existing 54 probation services must become 42. In all, 20 probation services will be involved in amalgamations, which we intend shall take effect on 1 April 2001. In London, the five existing services—Inner London, South-East London, South-West London, Middlesex and North-East London—need to merge to form a new service for Greater London. Section 2 of the Probation Service Act 1993 contains an order-making power to amalgamate probation services. However, there is a problem in relation to the creation of a single London probation service, in that the 1993 Act clearly envisages that there shall be more than one probation service in London. We have concluded that to make an order amalgamating the London services under the existing provision would go beyond the vires of that provision. Our amendments will allow us to proceed with the London amalgamation. The new clause inserted by Lords amendment No. 431 provides an order-making power to that effect. Our amendments also deal with the abolition of the receiver, an issue which arises because of the Inner London probation service's links to that office. To clarify my earlier remarks, the receiver will have a continuing responsibility in the transitional period until the new probation arrangements come into force.

DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Lords amendments Nos. 433 and 434 deal with the power of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, LFEPA, to co-opt on to its committees and sub-committees individuals who are not members of the GLA. The need for the amendments emerged from consultation with the current fire authority and the Association of London Government. The effect of clause 262(2) is that a person may not be a co-opted member of a committee of LFEPA unless he or she is a member of a London borough council, the common council or the Assembly. That is more prescriptive than the present arrangements, and the amendments are intended to bring the Bill much more into line with existing law. Lords amendment No. 786 arose from discussions with the Association of London Government. It sets out the action to be taken if a vacancy arises in the office of chairman of LFEPA. Paragraph 3(1) of schedule 23 requires the mayor in each year to appoint a chairman from among the members of the authority. Comparable legislation expressly provides for the filling of a vacancy in the office of chairman. The amendment therefore provides that, in the event of a vacancy arising in that office, the mayor will be required to appoint a new chairman from among the members of LFEPA as soon as possible. Lords amendment No. 787 is a minor technical amendment dealing with inconsistent wording in paragraph 3 of schedule 23. It substitutes the word "appoint" for "elect" in paragraph 3(2), so that the same word appears throughout the paragraph. The wording used is consistent with other local government legislation. The last two amendments relate to the consequential changes to legislation listed in schedule 24. Lords amendment No. 789 is a minor technical amendment to legislation affecting fire service pensions. For public service pensions increase legislation to apply to pension awards payable by LFEPA in the same way as it does to the current fire authority, a minor amendment is required to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. Lords amendment No. 790 will apply to LFEPA a provision that applies to the current fire authority. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a duty on certain authorities to exercise their functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do what is possible to prevent, crime and disorder. I hope that the House will support all those amendments.

THE SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Amendment No. 435 defines more succinctly, taking into account clause 33(5), the relationship between the mayor's spatial development strategy and other strategies. Discussion in Commons Committee revealed some difficulties of interpretation, so we have taken the opportunity to rationalise and improve the wording of existing subsection (4). The amendment is, therefore, a drafting amendment, which clarifies that the mayor's spatial development strategy must cover the spatial aspects of his or her other strategies and policies. Amendments Nos. 436 and 437 arise from a commitment that the Government gave in another place to consider an amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has left the Chamber, at the very moment when I was about to say something nice about his contribution. However, I am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) will relay to him my comments. The amendments ensure that, when deciding to whom consultation copies of the SDS should be sent, the mayor has to consider relevant bodies under the descriptions specified in clause 27(3)—the general consultation clause—as well as the consultees set out in part VIII of the Bill. Government amendment No. 438 arises from my agreement in Committee to consider an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. It places a duty on the mayor to notify any withdrawal of the draft SDS to those who are consulted during the preparation of the strategy and on the draft. At present, the Bill requires only that those who have made representations about the SDS—rather than those who have been formally consulted—should be informed. We accepted that there might possibly have been a gap, and were thus happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, because his approach seemed to be constructive. Amendment No. 442 clarifies, for the avoidance of doubt, that the regulations that we are producing for the SDS may include procedures to be followed by the mayor to ensure that the Secretary of State has an opportunity to exercise the power of direction over the strategy referred to in clause 267. Amendment No. 443 clarifies that the Secretary of State's power to direct amendment of the SDS can be made at any point before publication—not just on the consultation draft. Amendment No. 452 is, in essence, a tidying-up amendment in relation to the mayor's role in representing London's interests to the rest of the south-east. It clarifies that the mayor is able to represent London's collective interests on planning matters on any relevant body, not merely one that is made up solely of local authority membership.

PUBLICATION

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Amendments Nos. 439, 440, 441 and 444 arise from commitments made by the Government in another place to consider Opposition amendments relating to the report of the chair or of the panel of the examination in public into the spatial development strategy. Our intention is that the report of an EIP panel should include not merely findings of fact, but recommendations. After the debates held in the House during the past week over the report of the EIP panel into the south-east regional planning guidance, some hon. Members might question the view that there should be recommendations. However, the notion that the panel should make recommendations, rather than including only findings of fact, is very much part of our approach. Concern was expressed that the current term, "findings", may be too narrow to encompass "recommendations". In planning Acts and secondary legislation, the term "report" is more often used. We believe that that would be a more appropriate word: the amendments therefore change relevant references in the Bill from "findings" to "report." 8.45 pm The Bill as it stands provides for the Secretary of State to give the mayor by way of a development order the power to direct a London borough to refuse planning permission. Amendment No. 447 provides clarification to make certain that, when the Secretary of State makes such a development order, he can also impose a duty on the mayor to give reasons when he or she uses the power to direct refusal. Amendments Nos. 448 and 449 arise from a commitment I gave to consider an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). They provide that the mayor shall have regard to the unitary development plan and the spatial development strategy, so far as they are material to the application, when considering using his or her power to direct refusal of planning permission. Amendment No. 450 also arises from Government commitments given in another place to consider amendments proposed by the Opposition. We have always made it clear that the mayor will be liable for the costs of holding an appeal inquiry and the costs of other parties where the mayor has directed refusal of planning permission unreasonably. That is an important discipline and safeguard. The amendment puts that provision on the face of the Bill and ensures that an order for costs can be made, whether or not the mayor participates in an inquiry.

MONITORING AND DATA COLLECTION

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Amendments Nos. 451 and 508 to 511 set the framework within which the mayor can work with London boroughs and the common council to promote research and monitoring work. They provide for the continuing involvement of London local authorities in pan-London research and ensure that the mayor has all the tools necessary to inform the development and monitor the implementation of strategies. The amendments supersede the amendments on monitoring in clause 276, reflecting points raised in consideration of those provisions in another place, especially about the need to ensure that excessive burdens are not placed on London local authorities. I gave an undertaking to table amendments to meet those concerns. During their development, the amendments have been the subject of close consultation between the Government and representatives of London government. I am grateful to my noble Friend Lord Harris of Haringey for his considerable help with them. Amendments Nos. 500 to 506 fulfil the Government's commitment to tidy up the mayor's power to obtain information, advice and assistance from the functional bodies. The effect is to limit the duty to supply information, advice and assistance to that which the mayor may reasonably require for the exercise of his or her functions. The amendments also simplify the Secretary of State's power, by order, to make appropriate arrangements to protect privacy and confidentiality. We anticipate that the arrangements will be based on Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972. Amendment No. 507 corrects a loophole that we noticed in the provisions of clause 315, which provides the Secretary of State with a fallback power enabling him to instruct the GLA to make research data that it has collected available to others, in recognition of the important role it is to inherit from the London Research Centre. However, the existing provisions do not extend to research work carried out by predecessor bodies but inherited by the GLA. The amendment makes it clear that the Secretary of State's power should extend to enabling him to instruct the GLA to make available information transferred to it under the transfer provisions in clauses 319 and 320.

THE MAYOR'S ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Amendments Nos. 453 and 454 concern the state of the environment report. Amendment No. 453 would add biodiversity to the list of issues that the report should cover. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for spotting that omission in Committee. Amendment No. 454 would delete the detailed definition of information that the mayor would be required to provide in the report under the heading, "road traffic levels". That definition should be up to the mayor. Amendment No. 456 is also simple. On 1 April this year, the Countryside Commission merged with the Rural Development Commission. The new organisation is now known as the Countryside Agency, and the amendment would merely ensure that the correct name was on the face of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 480 and 481 would correct an anomaly in the Bill. Hon. Members will note that the Bill abolishes three existing organisations—the London Planning Advisory Committee, the London Ecology Committee and the London Research Centre—which are all due to be subsumed into the main body of the Greater London Authority. We have already made clear our intention to abolish the three organisations on 1 April 2000 to allow a smooth transition to the new Authority. However, the Bill, as currently drafted, allows us to abolish the London Ecology Committee only on the establishment of the Authority"— that is, after the GLA elections have taken place. That will not allow us to plan properly in advance—as is clearly desirable—for the establishment of the GLA. The amendments would correct the position and allow us to abolish the London Ecology Committee at the same time as LPAC and LRC, on 1 April 2000.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I thank the Minister for his gracious words. It would be mealy-mouthed to point out that I had to wait a long time for the amendment to be tabled. The Minister was gracious enough in Committee to say that such an amendment could be made to the Bill. It is a lesson to new Members of Parliament like me that patience is sometimes rewarded. I have not worked out the great difference between the amendment and the original amendment that required expert draftsmanship, but I am nevertheless grateful.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I hope that the Minister will concede that Liberal Democrat Members also raised the matter on several occasions. We were keen for the mayor's state of the environment report to reflect biodiversity. I should not nit-pick, but it is surprising that biodiversity was originally omitted from the Bill. Londoners are worried about biodiversity. In a debate last week, I referred to the threat to London's biodiversity that developments associated with the millennium dome present. Biodiversity should be reflected in the mayor's report. When he or she produces a strategy and environmental statement, I hope that it will help to drive local biodiversity plans, many of which are in abeyance and are waiting for a kick-start from the London mayor. Therefore, I support the amendment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Although I acknowledge the contribution that Liberal Democrats Members have made, we should be in no doubt that the amendment is a monument to the hon. Member for Uxbridge. We are enormously grateful, and congratulate him on what posterity will record as the Uxbridge amendment.

DIRECTIONS BY THE MAYOR

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The way in which the Bill was previously drafted may have resulted in some ambiguity concerning the use of the mayor's powers of direction. Over the summer, my officials held several meetings with representatives of the boroughs and the joint waste disposal authorities, so as to tease out the problems that could exist in the interface between the mayor's power of direction and the contractual nature of waste management. Once the position was clarified, my officials consulted every borough on our proposals, and I am pleased to be able to say that, for the most part, our proposals were warmly welcomed. This group of amendments clarifies the scope of the mayor's power of direction, setting out how that power can be made to sit with the contractual nature of local authority waste management while retaining mayoral influence over municipal waste management in London. It is important to remember that the mayor's effectiveness in that matter, to some extent, depends, on the influence that he has, through his power of direction, over existing and new contracts. We recognise that most long-term contracts will make allowances for some flexibility and adjustment, which will allow the mayor some room for manoeuvre. However, it was never our intention that the mayor should be able to use the power of direction to require an authority to exercise a so-called "break clause" in a contract. Such a use of that power could lead to authorities incurring substantial financial penalties and would have serious effects on London's waste management. It would certainly result in an increase in the cost of waste contracts as companies sought to cover the increased financial risk, and it could even result in companies not being prepared to enter contracts because they considered the risk too high. That would have very serious consequences for London. The amendments clarify the proposals that we set out in the White Paper, which did not go into detail about the mayor's power of direction.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

We are all grateful for the work that the Minister and his officials carried out in the summer with a view to removing the ambiguity in the clause. However, has the ambiguity been finally removed? Some further clarification is necessary. The amendment would clarify the mayor's powers with regard to the contractual nature of local authority waste management. However, it still poses more questions. The mayor's specific powers remain unclear and the amendment does not clarify whether the mayor would be obliged to have regard to the cost, practicality and environmental benefit of the waste management in question. What regard to cost would the mayor be obliged to have, and how specifically would those costs be audited and monitored?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I support the amendments, but wish to express a few words of caution. It is entirely appropriate that a local authority should not be forced to terminate an existing contract. Equally, it is right that a local authority should inform the mayor of the impending expiry of any contract. That is desirable, because there will be opportunities for economies of scale at a London level, for Londonwide recycling projects and for waste-minimisation initiatives. The mayor will have to tread carefully. The mayor should not use a stick against local authorities such as mine, the London borough of Sutton, which have effective waste-minimisation and recycling initiatives. There would be strong objections if the mayor attempted to overrule the local authority, even if it were perceived to be doing something slightly different from what the mayor desired.

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I reinforce the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). Obviously, I do not have the Hansard record of how the Minister opened his speech, but my recollection is that he said that there might have been some ambiguity. As I remember it, that ambiguity unquestionably existed when we first considered the Bill, and I recall asking some probing questions. As the text of my probing questions is not of the same importance as those I asked in an earlier exchange with the Minister for Housing and Planning, I shall not bore the House with the date or the column reference in the Official Report. Because there unquestionably was ambiguity at the beginning, I join my hon. Friend in thanking the Minister and his officials for the work that has been done in the summer, but I want to make certain that any last ambiguity has been squeezed out before we leave the matter.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

Let me—

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) for raising an important issue. On the issue of cost, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the explanatory note, which clearly states that there are further specific provisions to deal with contracts caught under public procurement regulations. When authorities are seeking offers in relation to the proposed contract under the public procurement procedures, they must generally issue two notices, the first containing general information—for example, as to the nature and extent of services to be provided—and the second advertising the authority's invitation to seek offers. The first is usually general in nature, and the second more specific. Once the second notice is published, the authority cannot substantially alter the terms without having to go through the procedure again. The amendment ensures that the mayor cannot issue a direction once the second notice has been sent to the Official Journal of the European Communities in order that public procurement procedures are not frustrated. The mayor must have regard to the best practical environmental option, as set out in the Secretary of State's guidance, to which the mayor must have recourse. The mayor must consult the authority before issuing directions, and take into account a number of considerations in dealing with those matters, of which cost will be one. For the better information of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I undertake to write to him on the matter. In response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), may I say that I am aware of the high standards achieved by his borough on waste minimisation. The mayor must in no way impinge upon those excellent standards. Indeed, we would expect such an example of best practice to be widely disseminated throughout the new Authority area.

DIRECTIONS UNDER THE ENVIRONMENT ACT 1995

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

This group of amendments corrects an anomaly in the Bill relating to the mayor's powers to direct London local authorities in respect of Community air quality obligations and international agreements. As hon. Members are aware, clause 294 devolves to the mayor the powers of direction under section 85 of the Environment Act 1995. Those powers relate to the local air quality management functions of London local authorities. For example, the mayor could direct a London authority to carry out a review and assessment of air quality in its area, or to prepare an action plan if it appears that air quality standards are unlikely to be met. However, section 85(5) of the 1995 Act includes the power to direct London local authorities "for the implementation of Community air quality obligations and international agreements. That power can be used in an essentially legislative manner to transpose such obligations. It has never been intended that the mayor should have the legislative function of transposition. After all, the mayor is not a law-making body. Rather, he should police Community obligations once they have been transposed by the Secretary of State, as well as policing the operation of the local air quality management system in London.

THE LONDON AMBIENT NOISE STRATEGY

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

The amendments clarify what is expected from the mayor's strategy so as better to reflect the intentions of the White Paper. We have defined what the strategy may consist of, removed the separate reference to the spatial development strategy and ensured that the Environment Agency is consulted when the mayor prepares or revises his strategy. We have provided that the mayor's strategy may contain information about the impact of noise on those living and working in London. In response to Opposition amendments, "ambient noise" now includes transport rather than transport services and the mayor may include other descriptions of noise that he considers to be appropriate. There is provision for including in the strategy noise caused by aircraft and traffic and noise from a fixed industrial source. The White Paper commitment was that the mayor would not deal with neighbour noise and we have ensured that local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive will continue to deal with matters using powers under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. There are two additional provisions. We have placed a duty on any person providing air navigation services to consult the mayor, where it is reasonably practicable to do so, when the provision of those services would have a significant adverse effect on the level or distribution of noise in Greater London or any part of Greater London. The duty is limited to air navigation services only so far as they amount to the lateral or vertical alteration or addition of routes used regularly by civil aircraft before landing at, or after departing from, any aerodrome; or substantial alterations to the procedures used for managing the arrival of civil aircraft at aerodromes. It does not apply in relation to tactical decisions necessary in day-to-day air traffic control. The mayor will also be added to the list of organisations to be consulted by aerodromes designated under section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.

Shaun Woodward (Conservative, Witney)

I have a simple question about amendment No. 478 for the Minister. As so many other hon. Members wish to speak, doubtless his officials will be given the chance to scramble some answer to him. Under the amendment, the mayor will have the right to be consulted on new flights and flight paths and be allowed to give his opinion. Opinions are all well and good, as we in the House know, but the crucial question is, what force will his opinion have on the air navigation services?

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I echo that question. It would be helpful to have clarification of the weight that will be given to the mayor's opinion on this matter. From my constituency perspective, I wholeheartedly welcome the amendment, which will give us the opportunity for further debate about the impact of noise on many of our constituents in west London. It will give us a further lever to influence the direction and flow of aircraft and reduce the impact of noise on our communities as a result of that. I hope that it will also allow us to confirm some of the issues that we need to debate in connection with any further planning proposals that the British Airport Authority makes for Heathrow and a potential third runway.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I suspect that the same question will be asked three times, so that will save the Minister time. I echo what other hon. Members have said: I am pleased that the impact of noise on those who live and work in Greater London will appear in the ambient noise strategy and that aircraft noise will be included in that. However, the Minister must clarify exactly what he means when he says that any person providing air navigation services must consult the mayor. Residents in south-west London are glad that the mayor will be consulted, but if an increasing number of flights still goes over their heads at all times of the day and night, that will not give them much satisfaction.

Keith Hill (Labour, Streatham)

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) for welcoming the provisions. I am aware that he is closely concerned with the issues and that a consultation on runway alterations has taken place locally. That is exactly the sort of issue that the mayor and the Assembly would be expected to deal with in due course. The hon. Members for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked what force the mayor's opinion will have. The simple truth is that the mayor has no absolute powers in this matter. However, he or she will be an influential person, personally elected by 7 million Londoners. It is therefore entirely predictable and reasonable that the mayor's representations will be seriously taken into account by the relevant authorities. It remains the case, however, that it is an opinion in a process of consultation, and consultation means that views have to be taken into account before a final decision is made. To some extent, the question is akin to the sort of question that constituents might ask about representations made by Members of Parliament—I am certainly often asked about the force of my representation. We cannot always quantify the force of our representation, but as individuals with a democratic mandate in our locality, we know that our representation is normally taken into account. The mayor represents a massive constituency and has a massive mandate, so his or her opinion will be seriously considered by the relevant authorities.

THE MAYOR'S CULTURE STRATEGY

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment. We now come to part X of the Bill, which deals with culture. The purpose of the amendment is to make specific reference to archives in the list of topics that may be included in the draft culture strategy. I would emphasise that the list of topics is purely exemplary and that the addition has no legal significance. Nevertheless, the Government regard archives as an important part of the cultural life of the nation and wish to raise the profile of the sector. Archives are one of the strategic responsibilities of the new Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. London, in particular, is the home of many unique and important archive collections, which play a vital role in defining the city's cultural identity. 9.15 pm In Committee, the matter was raised by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who made an eloquent plea for the inclusion of the specific reference to archives. I am glad that we are able to respond now. Let me also take this opportunity to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for inadvertently suggesting in an earlier debate that something was included in a White Paper when it was not. I was incorrect; I apologise unreservedly to the right hon. Gentleman, and once again acknowledge his mastery of the detail of this legislation, which ensured that his original comment was entirely accurate. It is because of the right hon. Gentleman's intervention that—having taken into account his views and those of others put to us in Committee and elsewhere, and in another place—the Government decided to accept the amendment tabled by the Opposition. The effect will be to insert "archives" on a new line, as a separate sub-heading, under "library services".

Peter Brooke (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I thank the Minister for his gracious words. This was always the shortest of all the amendments tabled to the Bill during its progress. Although—partly owing to provocation by the Minister—I spoke at some length when the subject was last debated, I shall be brief on this occasion. The amendment was rejected in Committee here, and in Committee in the Lords. I am delighted that, thanks to the eloquence of my noble Friend Lord Teviot, it was accepted on Report in the Lords, and I am delighted that it is in the Bill now. I have two reasons for being pleased about that. First, towards the end of my over-long speech, I invoked the spirit of my old friend the late Raphael Samuel. He was a tremendous oral historian: every shelf of his library in Spitalfields was three-deep in books. I think that, in another place—in a really different place, I mean—he may be smiling about what we have achieved today. Secondly, shortly after the Committee stage, I accepted a request to review Mr. Stephen Inwood's book, "A History of London"—I did not realise that it contained 1,111 pages. In any event, my review closed with the coda that it would be a worthy tribute to Mr. Inwood's book if the Government could be persuaded to incorporate in the Bill the amendments relating to archives. I do not know what Mr. Inwood's views are, but I personally am very pleased.

GRANTS BY THE MAYOR FOR MUSEUMS, GALLERIES ETC.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The overall effect of the amendments is to ensure that the mayor may give both financial and non-financial assistance—subject to conditions—to cultural institutions and tourism in London. The Government consider that that provision improves the Bill. It gives the mayor full discretion to choose in what form to make assistance available, and with what limitations. Again, I express my gratitude to the Opposition, who first suggested extending the power in respect of cultural institutions, and whose amendments had been accepted, in spirit, by Third Reading.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.